









0^ .•■•*. V 












^* ..*. 



.0^ ■^• 








.0^..^^^% ^^^ 


















.-J--*"* 











0'' 






•iP, 



^^ V 


















o "-n^^^ ;. 


















rt >^ . • • 



•- '^'^^ c*^"*' •*isa^-. ' ^., ,v^ ' .*a\*%i?a:* '^.^^ <f' - 



'Cr^.t'i' 



K" "^^ 







: *^^* 



















^a><7- 







> >^••■•^V co<^>o /'V-'-Xj^ 







': ^v.^^^ • 









./■^-.. 






"*. 






O^ *'7V.« v'^ 



• • ' « 







^^ ♦ • » 







«5q* 















V' 



REPORT 



COMMISSIONERS 



UNDER THE 



RESOLVES OF MAY 26, 1842, 



IN RELATION TO TFIE 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY 



AUGUSTA: 

Wm. R. smith & Co., PRINTERS TO THE STATE, 

1843. 



crrr 

BAREARrr W, CUSH)»(> 
JAN. 26, 3L93& 



fj^/i='5'75^9 






19 



/^V^ 



mB^©m^ 



Augusta, January 4, 1843. 

His ExceUency JOHN FAIRFIELD, 

Governor of Maine : 

Sir : — We have the honor now to submit to you a re- 
turn of our doings as Commissioners under the " Resolves 
in relation to the Northeastern boundary of this State,'' 
passed May 26, 1842, as required by one of their pro- 
visions. 

It is well known, that early last season assurances 
from various quarters were held out to yourself, to mem- 
bers of Congress from this State, to members of our 
Legislature, and others, that the special Minister of Great 
Britain, then recently arrived in this country, was clothed 
with the most ample powers, and furnished with the most 
liberal and conciliatory instructions, for the settlement of 
our northeastern boundary. These assurances led not 
only to the calhng of the special session of the Legisla- 
ture and the passing of the Resolves already referred to, 
but gave rise to a general expectation and belief in this 
State and throughout the United States, that an honora- 
ble adjustment of the vexatious and harrassi'ng contro- 
versy respecting our boundary could be effected without 
difficulty, if Maine on her part would exhibit a proper 
spirit of magnanimity and concihation. Whether the 
extent of Lord Ashburton's powers, and the nature of his 
instructions, as ultimately disclosed by him, would warrant 






NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

such assurances and expectations, is a question, upon 
which we forbear to express any opinion. Instead of 
being clothed, as was supposed, with full power to nego- 
tiate a mutual interchange of contiguous territory for the 
purpose of removing the acknowledged inconveniences 
resulting from the treaty line of demarcation, we soon 
learned, that he had no authority whatever to concede a 
single acre of British territory adjoining Maine, nay, not 
even to the smallest of her islands in Passamaquoddy bay. 
To remove all doubt on this point when, after many con- 
ferences and informal propositions, the negotiation had 
come to a stand, he voluntarily submitted his instructions 
on this head to two of our number — nay, more, we feel no 
hesitation in saying, that such was Lord Ashburton's de- 
sire to settle by amicable negotiation this long protracted 
and inveterate dispute, that in acceding on the part of 
his government to the arrangement, to which we subse- 
quently gave a conditional assent on the part of Maine, 
he put the most liberal construction on his powers, and 
went to the utmost extent, his instructions would author- 
ized him to do. How far the arrangement, to which we 
have referred, falls short of the just claims and expecta- 
tions of the Legislature and people of Maine, we need 
not say. We found it excedingly difficult to bring our 
minds to entertain and consider the proposition. Still, 
we were satisfied, the terms, ultimately engrafted into the 
treaty, were the most favorable terms to Maine, to which 
the Minister of Great Britain would accede on his part 
on the principle of mutual equivalents. The field of dis-^ 
cussion had by this time become so narrowed down by 
means of informal propositions and conferences, that wo 
readily made up our minds, that there remained to us. 
only one of throe courses to pursue, viz : — 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 5 

1st. — Dedine to accede to the proposition already 
mentioned ; and also the one we are next to consider ; 
break off the negotiation, and return home, having ac- 
complished nothing. 

The immediate consequences of such a course on our 
part, would have been the grievous disappointment, which 
would have been felt by the people of Maine and of the 
United States, especially by the commercial community, 
and by that most deserving portion, Avho are the lovers of 
peace and the haters of war and violence. Besides, we 
were given distinctly to understand, that such a measure 
on our part would immediately be followed by a submis- 
sion of the question anew to arbitration by the United 
States and Great Britain ; — an arbitration with all its at- 
tendant delays, new border troubles, new encroachments, 
irritation, and expense ; and with the certain danger, that 
in the end the rights and just claims of Maine might be 
still more seriously compromitted. 

2d. — We were given to understand, that it was not yet 
too late to adopt, ratify, and confirm the line, recommend- 
ed by the arbiter ; and settle the controversy in that way. 

In reference to such a proposition, we suggested on 
our part, that, if the limited right to the navigation of the 
St. John could be conceded, as an equivalent, we might 
bring ourselves, perhaps, to assent to it, particularly if we 
could mutually agree upon a modification of that line. But 
every suggestion on our part, as to modifying and nar- 
rowing the bounds, and as to equivalents, was met by a 
prompt and decided negative. If we acceded to that line, 
it could only be on the basis of the award, simply and 
purely, and ivithoui any equivalent. Would, then, the 
commissioners of Maine be justified by their fellow citi- 
zens in assenting, in behalf of the State, at this late day, 
2 



6 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

to a ratification of the award of the King of the Nether- 
lands? More than ten years ago the Legislature of Maine 
repeatedly and solemnly protested against the ratification 
of that award. It even refused to trust in the hands of 
the President and Senate of the United States, the dis- 
cretionary power of ratifying it, although in case of its 
eventual ratification, Maine would have realized as an 
indemnity, more than two millions of dollars, and avoided 
all the expense and border troubles to which the contro- 
versy has since given occasion. The views of the Leg- 
islature, so repeatedly expressed, were opposed to any 
such assent on the part of its agents. The spirit of the 
resolves under which we derived our authority, was op- 
posed to it. Considering the course, which the Legisla- 
ture and Executive of Maine have pursued in regard to 
this matter, the acceptance of such a proposition was out 
of the question. To have acceded to it would have been 
in our opinion, to disregard the interest of the State, and 
trifle with its character and honor. 

3d. The last, and only remaining alternative open to 
us, was, to accede to the proposition made to us by order 
of the President, subject to such modifications as were 
finally procured on the express condition, however, on our 
part, that in the opinion of the Senate of the United 
States, Maine ought under existing circumstances to con- 
sent to so great a sacrifice of her just claims for the peace 
and harmony and general welfare of the Union. 

The proposition, when first presented, was so objec- 
tionable in our estimation, that it was not until after much 
consideration and reflection that we were brought to hes- 
itate in regard to it. Meantime the British Minister with 
much reluctance and hesitation, and as a last eftbrt on his 
part, had yielded his assent. The Commissioners of Mas- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 7 

sachusetts had sent in their adhesion. It was the propo- 
sition dehberately made by the Executive of the United 
States, and in the character of a mediator. The situa- 
tion of the country was difficult. The whole country 
seemed to be insisting that the controversy should be ad- 
justed. With the history of the past before us, and the 
temper manifested at the time, we could not but perceive 
how little efficient aid and support Maine had to expect, 
if we persisted in opposition to the almost unanimous 
wish of the country. We should have readily acceded to 
the proposition, but for that narrow strip of comparatively 
little value, which embraces the highland boundary. To 
Great Britain nearly its whole value will consist in secur- 
ing to her a broad, inhospitable, wilderness frontier. 
Such a frontier in that quarter is not undesirable even to 
Maine. Its possession to Maine would be of little use, and 
is more a matter of pride, than interest. . Should we then 
for that strip forego all the advantages of a speedy and 
amicable settlement of the controversy ? Maine cannot 
contend single handed with Great Britain. Already she 
has incurred great expense, and involved herself in debt 
on account of this dispute. Still, one encroachment has 
followed another ; and step by step one concession has 
followed another. Maine has been loosing ground and 
Great Britain steadily strengthening her position against 
us. We see no reason to doubt, that it would continue 
to be so. As to the honor of the State, by acceding to 
the proposition as modified, conditionally, we leave the 
whole question to the representatives of the States in the 
Senate ; and we may safely refer the question of the 
honor of the State and the country to them. Again, on 
the other hand, as to the interest of the State in a pecu- 
niary point of view there can be no question. Maine is 



8 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY'. 

a commercial State. Her commerce is one of her prin- 
cipal resources. She is deeply interested both internally 
and externally in the preservation of peace. It is peace, 
and not war, that is to people her unoccupied lands, and 
the rich valley of the Aroostook. It is peace, which is to 
develope her resources, and give scope to her enterpris- 
ing, hardy and industrious population. By settling the 
difficulty Maine secures peace and quiet within her bor- 
ders. She brings her best settling lands into market, and 
secures a rapid increase of population, where she most 
needs it. She puts an end to further encroachments, and 
to that border warfare, and those depredations, which 
have given rise to so much trouble, and subjected her to 
so much expense. She will receive into her treasury in 
money more than all the territory she gives up, would 
ever yield her. She secures an indemnity for a large part 
of the expenses, already incurred by her, in protecting 
and exploring the territory. And furthermore, she 
secures the right of the free navigation of the St. John 
and of a British market for the products of the forests 
and of the soil that are grown within its valley. On the 
whole, from considerations such as tliese, and on a care- 
ful reviewing of the whole matter with a single eye to 
the interests of Maine, we were induced to yield our con- 
ditional assent to the proposition made us, as modified 
and engrafted into the treaty : and we now submit our 
doings in that behalf to the discernment and sound judg- 
ment of the Legislature and people of Maine. As part 
of our doings, and as illustrating the course and progress 
of the business, intrusted to us, we refer to the annexed 
copies of documents ; and request that they should con- 
stitute and be considered as a part of this report. Wc 
also submit a copy of Map A, so called, reduced for the 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 9 

purpose of illustrating our position in answer to Lord 
Ashburton as to the source of the St. John intended by 
tlie American Commissioners, who negotiated the treaty 
of 1783— also an extract from Mitchell's Map of 1755, 
for the same purpose. 

With the highest respect and consideration we are. Sir, 
your very obedient servants, 

Wm. p. PREBLE, 
EDWARD KAVANAGH, 
EDWARD KENT, 
JOHN OTIS. 



2* 



APPENDIX 



No. 1. Letter from the British Minister, asserting the claim of 
Great Britain to the territory in dispute. 



Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, June 13, 1842. 

Sir : On considering the most effectual mode of proceeding to 
arrive at an amicable and satisfactory termination of the long con- 
tinued controversy respecting the northeastern boundary, between 
the British colony of New Brunswick and the State of Maine, I 
believe that I may confidently conclude, from what has passed in 
the preliminary conferences which I have had the honor of holding 
with you, that we concur in the opinion that no advantage would 
be gained by reverting to the interminable discussion on the general 
grounds on which each party considers their claims respectively to 
rest. In the course of the many years that this discussion has 
lasted, every argument, on either side, is apparently exhausted, and 
that without any approach to an agreement. The present attempt, 
therefore, of a settlement, must rest for its success, not on the re- 
newal of a controversy, but on proceeding on the presumption that 
all means of a reciprocal conviction having failed, as also the ex- 
periment of calling in the aid of a friendly arbiter and umpire, there 
remains only the alternative of a compromise for the solution of 
this otherwise apparently insurmountable difficulty, unless, indeed, 
it were determined to try a second arbitration, attended by its de- 
lay, trouble, and expense, in defiance of past experience as to the 
probability of any more satisfactory results. 

It is undoubtedly true, that, should our present attempt unfor- 
tunately fail, there might remain no other alternative but a second 
reference ; yet, when I consider all the difficulty and uncertainty 
attending it, I trust that all parties interested will come to the con- 
clusion that the very intricate details connected with the case must 
be better known and judged by our two governmenlSj than any dil- 



2 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

igence can make them to be by any third party, and that a sincere, 
candid disposition to give reciprocally fair weight to the arguments 
on either side, is Hkely to lead us to a more satisfactory settlement 
than an engagement to abide by the uncertain award of a less com- 
petent tribunal. The very friendly and cordial reception given by 
you, sir, as well as by all the authorities of your government, to 
the assurance that my mission here, by my sovereign, has been 
determined by an unfeigned desire to settle this and all other ques- 
tions of difference between us, on principles of conciliation and 
justice, forbid me to anticipate thiC possibility of the failure of our 
endeavors applied with sincerity to this purpose. 

With this view of the case, therefore, although not unprepared 
to enter into the general argument, I abstain from so doing, from 
the conviction that an amicable settlement of this vexed question, 
so generally desired, will be thereby best promoted. But, at the 
same time, some opinions have been industriously emitted through- 
out this controversy, and in some instances by persons in authority, 
of a description so much calculated to mislead the public mind, that 
I think it may be of service to offer a few observations. 

I do not, of course, complain of the earnest adherence of parti- 
sans on either side to the general arguments on which their case is 
supposed to rest ; but a position has been taken, and facts have 
been repeatedly stated, which I am sure the authorities of the fed- 
eral government will be abundantly able to contradict, but which 
have evidently given rise to much public misapprehension. It is 
maintained that the whole of this controversy about the boundary 
began in 1814, that up to that period the line as claimed by Maine 
was undisputed by Great Rritainj and that the claim was avowedly 
founded on motives of interest, to obtain the means of conveniently 
connecting the British provinces. I confine these remarks to the 
refuting this imputation, and I should, indeed, not have entered 
upon controversy, even on this, if it did not appear to me to in- 
volve in some degree a question of national sincerity and good 
faith. 

The assertion is founded on the discussions which preceded the 
treaty of peace signed at Ghent in 1814. It is perfectly true that 
a proposal was submitted by the British plenipotentiaries for the 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 3 

revision of the boundaiy line on the northeastern frontier, and that 
it was founded on the position that it was desired to secure the 
communication between the provinces, the precise dehmitation of 
which was at that time imperfectly known. The American pleni- 
potentiaries, in their first communication from Ghent to the Secre- 
tary of State, admit that the British ministers expressly disclaimed 
any intention of acquiring an increase of territory, and that they 
proposed the revision for the purpose of preventing uncertainty and 
dispute; a purpose sufficiently justified by subsequent events. 
Again: in their note of the 4th of September, 1814, the British 
ministers remind those from America that the boundary had never 
been ascertained, and that the line claimed by America, which in- 
terrupted the communication between Halifax and Quebec, never 
could have been in the contemplation of the parties to the treaty of 
peace of 1783. The same view of the case will be found to per- 
vade all the communications between the plenipotentiaries of the 
two countries at Ghent. There was no attempt to press any ces- 
sion of territory on the ground of policy or expedience ; but although 
the precise geography of the country was then imperfectly known, 
it was notorious at the time that different opinions existed as to the 
boundary likely to result from continuing the north line from the 
head of the river St. Croix. This appears to have been so clearly 
known and admitted by the American plenipotentiaries, that they, 
in submitting to the conference the project of a treaty, offer a pre- 
amble to their 4th article, in these words : " Whereas, neither that 
'part of the highlands lying due north from the source of the river 
St. Croix, and designated, in the former treaty of peace between 
the two powers, as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor the 
northernmost head of the Connecticut river, has yet been ascer- 
tained," ho. It should here be observed that these are the words 
proposed, not by the British, but by the American negotiators, and 
that they were finally adopted by both in the 5th article of the 
treaty. 

To close my observations upon what passed on this subject at 
Ghent, I would draw your attention to the letter of Mr. Gallatin, 
one of the American plenipotentiaries, to Mr. Secretary Monroe, of 
the 25th of December, 1814. He offers the following conjecture 



4 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

as to what might prohably be the arguments of Great Britain against 
the Hne set up by America : " They hope that the river which 
empties into the bay des Chaleurs, in the gulf of St. Lawrence, has 
its source so far west as to intervene between the head waters of 
the river St. John and those of the streams emptying into the river 
St. Lawrence ; so that the Hne north from the source of the river 
St. Croix will first strike the heights of land which divide the waters 
emptying into the Atlantic ocean (river St. John) from those emp- 
tying into the gulf of St. Lawrence (river des Chaleurs), and after- 
ward the heights of land which divide the waters emptying into the 
gulf of St. Lawrence (river des Chaleurs) from those emptying 
into the river St. Lawrence ; but that the said line never can, in 
the words of the treaty, strike any spot of land actually dividing 
the waters emptying into the Atlantic ocean from those which fall 
into the river St. Lawrence." 

So obvious an argument in opposition to the line claimed by 
America could not escape the known sagacity of Mr. Gallatin. I 
state it not for the purpose of discussing its merits, but to show, 
that, at Ghent, not only the fact was well known that this boundary 
was a matter in dispute, but that the arguments respecting it had 
then been weighed by the gentleman so eminent in its subsequent 
discussion. Indeed, the fact that the American ministers made this 
disputed question a matter for reference, by a treaty afterward rati- 
fied by the President and Senate, must in every candid mind be 
sufficient proof that it was generally considered to be involved in 
sufficient doubt to entitle it to such a mode of solution. It cannot 
possibly be supposed that the President and Senate would have 
admitted, by treaty, doubts respecting this boundary, if they had 
been heard of for the first time through the pretensions of the Brit- 
ish plenipotentiaries at Ghent. 

If the argument or assertions which I am now noticing, and to 
which I studiously confine myself, had not come from authority, I 
should owe some apology for these observations. The history of 
this unfortunrite controversy is too well known to you, sir, and 
stands but too voluminously recorded in your department, to make 
them necessary for your own information. 

The repeated discussions between the two countries, and the re- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 5 

peated projects for settlement, which have occupied every succes- 
sive administration of the United States, sufficiently prove how^ 
unfounded is the assertion that the doubts and difficulties respecting 
this boundary had their first origin in the year 1814. It is true that 
down to that time, and indeed to a later period, the local features of 
the country were little known, and the different arguments had in 
consequence not assumed any definite form ; but sufficient was 
known to both parties to satisfy them of the impossibility of tracing 
strictly the boundary prescribed by the treaty of peace of 1783. 

I would refer, in proof of this, simply to American authorities, 
and those of the very first order. 

In the year 1802, Mr. Madison, at that time Secretary of State 
for the United States, in his instructions to Mr. Rufus King, ob- 
served that the difficulty in fixing the northwest angle of Nova 
Scotia, "arises from a reference, in the treaty of 1783, to high- 
lands which it is now found have no definite existence." And he 
suggests the appointment of a commission, to be jointly appointed, 
" to determine on a point most proper to be substituted for the de- 
scription in article II. of the treaty of 1783." Again : Mr. Presi- 
dent Jefferson, in a message to Congress on the 17th October, 
1803, stated that " a further knowledge of the ground in the north- 
eastern and northwestern angles of the United States has evinced 
that the boundaries established by the treaty of Paris, between the 
British territories and ours, in those points, were too imperfectly 
described to be susceptible of execution." 

These opinions of two most distinguished American statesmen 
gave rise to a convention of boundary, made in London by Mr. 
Rufus King and Lord Hawkesbury, which from other circumstances, 
which it is not necessary to refer to, was not ratified by the Senate. 
I might further refer you on this subject to the report of Judge 
Sullivan, who acted as commissioner of the United States for settling 
the controversy with Great Britain, respecting the true river St. 
Croix, who says, "the boundary between Nova Scotia and Canada 
was described by the King's proclamation in the same mode of 
expression as that used in the treaty of peace. Commissioners 
who were appionted to settle that line have traversed the country 
in vain to find the highlands designated as the boundary." 



6 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

With these known facts, how can it possibly be maintained, that 
doubts about the boundary arose for the first time in the year 1814. 
I need not pursue this subject further. Indeed, it would have 
been useless to treat of it at all with any person having before him 
the records of the diplomatic history of the two countries for the 
last half a century. My object in adverting to it is, to correct an 
error arising, I am ready to believe, not from any intention to mis- 
represent, but from want of information, and which seemed to be 
sufficiently circulated to make some refutation useful toward pro- 
moting the desired friendly and equitable settlement of this question. 
We believe the position maintained by us on the subject of 
this boundary to be founded in justice and equity ; and we deny 
that we have been determined in our pretensions by policy and ex- 
pedience. I might, perhaps, fairly admit that those last mentioned 
considerations have prompted, in some measure, our perseverence 
in raaintaing them. The territory in controversy is ( for that por- 
tion of it at least which is likely to come to Great Britain by any 
amicable settlement ) as worthless for any purposes of habitation or 
cultivation as probably any tract of equal size on the habitable 
globe, and if it were not for the obvious circumstances of its con- 
necting the British North American provinces, I believe I might 
venture to say. that whatever might have been the merit of our 
case, we should long since have given up the controversy, and 
willingly have made the sacrifice to the wishes of a country with 
which it is so much our interest, as it is our desire, to maintain the 
most perfect harmony and good will. 

I trust that this sentiment must be manifest in my unreserved 
communication with you on this and all other subjects connected 
with my mission. If I have failed in this respect, I shall have ill 
obeyed the instructions of my Government and the earnest dictates 
of my personal inclination. Permit me, sir. to avail myself of this, 
my first opportunity of formally addressing you, to assure you un- 
feignedly of my most distinguished consideration. 

ASHBURTON. 
Hon. Daniel Webster. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY, 



No. 2. Proposition of the British Government, 



Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Wasliington, June 21, 1842. 

Sir : — The letter you did me the honor of addressing me on the 
l"th instant, informed me that you were now prepared and autho- 
rized to enter with me into discussion of that portion of the difier- 
ences between our two countries which relates to the northeastern 
boundary ; and we had, the following day, our first formal confer- 
ence for this purpose, with a view to consider, in the first instance, 
the best mode of proceeding to arrive at what is so much desired 
by all parties, an amicable, and at the same time equitable settle- 
ment of a controversy, which, with the best intentions, the authori- 
ties of the two countries, for nearly half a century, have in vain 
endeavored to eftect. 

The result of this conference has been, that I have been invited 
by you to state generally my views of this case, and of the expec- 
tations of my government ; and although I am aware that in the 
ordinary practice of diplomatic intercourse I should expose myself 
to some disadvantage by so doing, I nevertheless do not hesitate to 
comply, premising only that the following observations are to be 
considered merely as memoranda for discussion, and not as formal 
propositions to have any binding effect, should our negotiations have 
the unfortunate fate of the many which have preceded it, of ending 
in disappointment. 

1 believe you are sufficiently aware of the circumstances which 
induced me personally to undertake this mission. If the part which, 
during a long life, I have taken in public affairs, is marked by any 
particular character, it has been by an earnest, persevering desire to 
maintain peace, and to promote harmony between our two countries- 
My exertions were unavailingly employed to prevent the last unfor- 
tunate war, and have since been unremitting in watching any passing 
clouds whicl; might at any time forbode its renewal. On the acces- 
sion to power of the present ministers in England, perceiving the 



§ NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

same wise and honorable spirit to prevail with them, I could not 
resist the temptation and the hope of being of some service to my 
country, and to our common race, at a time of life when no other 
cause could have had sufficient interest to draw me from a retire- 
ment better suited to my age and to my inclination. 

I trust, sir, that you will have perceived in the course of my 
hitherto informal communications with you, that I approach my 
duties generally without any of those devices and manoeuvres 
which are supposed, I believe ignorantly, to be the useful tools of 
ordinary diplomacy. With a person of your penetration they would 
avail as little as they would with the intelligent public of the two 
great enlightened countries of whose interests we are treating. I 
know no other mode of acting than open, plain dealing, and I 
therefore disregard, willingly, all the disadvantages of com. plying 
with the invitation given me to be the first to speak on this question 
of the eastern boundary. 

It is already agreed that we abstain from a continued discussion 
of the arguments by which the lines of the two countries are recip- 
rocally maintained ; and I have so well observed this rule, that I 
have not even communicated to you a volume of additional contro- 
versial matter, which I brought with me, and much of which would, 
if controversy were our object, be of no inconsiderable weight and 
importance. It would be in the event only of the failure of this 
negotiation, which I will not anticipate, that we should be again 
driven into the labyrinth from which it is our purpose to escape, 
and that, failing to interpret strictly the words of the treaty, we 
should be obliged to search again into contemporaneous occurrences 
and opinions for principles of construction which might shed light 
on the actual intentions of the parties. 

Our success must, on the contrary, depend on the reciprocal ad- 
mission, or presumption, that the royal arbiter was so far right, when 
he came to the cunclusion which others had come to before him, 
that the treaty of 1783 was not executable according to its strict 
expression, and that the case was therefore one for agreement by 
compromise. The only point upon which I thought it my duty to 
enter upon any thing like controversy, is that referred to in my let- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 9 

ter of the 13th Instant, and I did so to rescue my government and 
myself from an imputation of unworthy motives, and the charge 
that they had set up a claim which they knew to be unfounded, 
from mere considerations of policy or convenience. The assertions 
of persons in my ])Osition, on subjects connected with their diplo- 
matic duties, arc naturally received by the world with some cau- 
tion ; but I tru.;t that you will believe me when I assure you that t 
should DOt be the person to come here on any such errand. 

I do not pretend, nor have I ever thought the claim of Great 
Britain, with respect to this boundary, any more than the claim of 
America, to be unattended with difficulties. Those claims have been 
considered by impartial men, of high authority and unquestioned 
ability, to be equally so attended, and therefore it is that this is a 
question for a compromise, and it is this compromise which it has 
become our duty to endeavor to accomplish. 

I will only here add the most solemn assurance, which I would 
not lightly make, that after a long and careful consideration of all 
the arguments and inferences, direct and circumstantial, bearing on 
the whole of this truly difficult question, it is my settled conviction 
that it was the intention of the parties to the treaty of peace of 
1783, however imperfectly those intentions may have been execut- 
ed, to leave to Great Britain, by their description of boundaries, the 
whole of the waters of the river St. John. 

The length of these preliminary observations requires, perhaps, 
some apology, but I now proceed to comply with your application 
to me to state the principles and conditions on which, it appears to 
me, that this compromise, which it is agreed we should attempt, 
should be founded. 

A new boundary is in fact to be traced between the State of 
Maine and the Province of New Brunswick. In doing this, refer- 
ence must be had to the extent and value of the territory in dispute, 
but, as a general principle, we cannot do better than keep in mind 
the intention of the framers of the first treaty of peace in 1733, as 
expressed in the preamble to the provisional articles in the following 
words; '-Whereas reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience 



10 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

are found by experience to form the only permanent foundation of 
peace and friendship between States," he. I have on a former 
occasion explained the reasons which have induced the British gov- 
ernment to maintain their rights in this controversy beyond any 
apparent value in the object in dispute, to be the establishing a good 
boundary between oiir two countries, so as to prevent collision and 
dispute, and an unobstructed communication and connection of our 
colonies with each other. Further, it is desired to retain under the 
jurisdiction of each government respectively, such inhabitants as 
have for a length of time been so living, and to whom a transfer of 
allegiance might be painful or distressing. 

These are shortly the objects we have in view, and which we 
must now seek to reconcile to a practical division of the territory 
in dispute. Great Britain has no wish of aggrandizement for any 
general purpose of increased dominion, as you must be satisfied 
by the liberality with which I have professed myself ready to treat 
questions of boundaries in other quarters, where no considerations 
of particular convenience or fitness occur. I might further prove 
this by calling your attention to the fact, that of the land likely to 
come to us by any practicable settlement, nine tenth parts of it are, 
from its position and quality, wholly worthless. It can support no 
population, it grows even little timber of value, and can be of no 
service but as a boundary, though from its desert nature a useful 
boundary, for two distinct governments. 

In considering on the map a division of the territory in question, 
this remarkable circumstance must be kept in mind, that a division 
of acres by their number would be a very unequal division of their 
value. The southern portion of this territory, the valley of the 
Aroostook, is represented to be one of the most beautiful and most 
fertile tracts of land in this part of the continent, capable of the 
highest state of cultivation, and covered with fine timber; while the 
northern portion, with the exception of that small part comprised 
within the Madawaska settlement, is of the miserable description I 
have stated. It would be no exaggeration to say, that one acre on 
the Aroostook would be of much more value than ten acres north 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 11 

of the St. John. There would be, therefore, no equahty in making 
a division of acre for acre. 

But, although I remind you of this circumstance, I do not call 
on you to act upon it. On the contrary, I am willing that you 
should have the advantage in this settlement, both in the quantity 
and quality of this land. All I wish is, to call this fact in proof 
of my assertion, that the object of Great Britain was simply to 
claim that which was essential to her, and would form a convenient 
boundary, and to leave all the more material advantages of this 
bargain to the State of IMaine. 

I now come to the more immediate application of these princi- 
ples to a definite line of boundary; and looking at the map with 
reference to the sole object of Great Britain as already described, 
the line of the St. John, from where the north lino from the St. 
Croix strikes it, up to some one of its sources, seems evidently to 
suit both parties, with the exception which I shall presently men- 
tion. This line throws the v/aste and barren tract to Great Brit- 
ain, and the rich and valuable lands to Maine ; but it makes a good 
boundary, one which avoids collision and probable dispute ; and 
for the reasons stated we should be satisfied with it, if it were not 
for the peculiar circumstances of a settlement formed on both sides 
of the St. John, from the mouth of the Madawaska up to that of 
the Fish river. 

The history and circumstances of this settlement are well known 
to you. It was originally formed from the French establishments 
in Acadia, and has been uninterruptedly under French or British 
dominion, and never under any other laws. The inhabitants have 
professed great apprehension of being surrendered by Great Britain, 
and have lately sent an earnest petition to the Queen, deprecating 
that being done. Further, this settlement forms one united com- 
munity all connected together, and living some on one and some 
on the other side of the river, which forms a sort of high road be- 
tween them. It seems self-evident that no more inconvenient line of 
boundary could well be drawn than one which divides in two an ex- 
isting municipality, Inconvenient as well to the inhabitants themselves 
as to the authorities under which they are to live. There would be 



12 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

evident hardship, I might say cruehy, in separating this now happy 
and contented village, to say nothing of the bickerings and proba- 
ble collisions likely to arise from taking in this spot the precise line 
of the river, which would under other circumstances satisfy us. 
Indeed, I should consider that such a separation of these industrious 
settlers, by placing them under separate laws and governments, a most 
harsh proceeding, and that we should thereby abandon the great 
object we should have in view, of the happiness and convenience 
of the people, and the fixing a boundary the least likely to occasion 
future strife. 

I dwell on this circumstance at some length in justification of the 
necessity I am under of departing to this inconsiderable extent from 
the marked line of tha river St. John. What line should be taken 
to cover this difficulty I shall have to consider with you, but I can- 
not in any case abandon the obvious interests of these people. It 
will be seen by an inspection of the map, that it is not possible to 
meet this difficulty by making over to Maine the northern portion 
of this settlement, as that would be giving up by Great Britain the 
immediately adjoining communication with Canada, which it is her 
principd object to preserve. 

These observations dispose of those parts of this question which 
immediately concern the State of Maine ; but it may be well at 
the same time to state my views respecting the adjoining boundary 
of the Slates of New Hampshire, Vermont and New York, because 
they made part of the reference to the King of the Netherlands, 
and were, indeed, the only part of the subject in dispute upon 
which a distinct decision was given. 

The question here at issue between the two countries was as to the 
correct determination of the parallel of latitude and the true source 
of the Connecticut river. Upon both these points decisions were 
pronounced in favor of Great Britain ; and I might add that the 
case of America, as matter of right, was but feebly and doubtingly 
supported by her own authorities. I am nevertheless disposed to 
surrender the whole of this case, if we should succeed in settling, 
as proposed, the boundary of I\laine. There is a point or two in 
this line of boundary where I may have to consider, with the as- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 13 

sistance of the surveyors acquainted with the localities, the conven- 
ience of the resident settlers, as also, what line may best suit the 
immediate country at the head of the Connecticut river, but sub- 
stantially the government of America shall be satisfied, and this 
point be yielded to them. 

This concession, considered with reference to the value of the land 
ceded, which is generally reported to be fertile, and contains a posi- 
tion at Rouse's point, much coveted in the course of the controver- 
sy, would, under ordinary circumstances, be considered of consid- 
erable importance. 

The concession will, however, be made by Great Britain without 
reluctance, not only to mark the liberal and conciliatory spirit by 
which it is desired to distinguish these negotiations, but because the 
case is in some respects analogous to that of the Madawaska settle- 
ment, before considered. It is believed that the settlers on the 
narrow strip, which would be transferred to Great Britain by recti- 
fying the 45th parallel of latitude, which was formerly incorrectly 
laid down, are principally from the United States, and that their 
opinions and habits incline them to give a preference to that 
form of government, under which, before the discovery of the error 
in question, they supposed themselves to be living. It cannot be 
desired by her Majesty to acquire any addition of territory under 
such circumstances, whatever may be the weight of her rights ; but 
it will be observed that the same argument applies almost exactly 
to the Madawaska settlement, and justifies the reservation I am 
there obliged to make. In these days the convenience and hap- 
piness of the people to be governed will ever be the chief guide in 
transactions of this description, between such governments as those 
of Great Britain and the United States. 

Before quitting this subject, I would observe that it is rumored 
that Major Graham, in his late survey in IMaine, reports some devi- 
ation from the true north of the line from the head of the St. Croix 
toward the St. John. I would here also propose to abide by the 
old line, long established, and from which the deviation by Major 
Graham is, 1 am told, inconsiderable, without at all doubting the 
accuracy and good faith of that very distinguished officer. 



14 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

In stating the important concessions I am prepared to make on a 
final settlement of these boundaries, I am sensible that concessions 
to one State of this Union are not always to be made available for 
the satisfaction of any other ; but you are aware that I am treating 
with the United States, and that for a long line of important bounda- 
ries, and that I could not presume to enter on the question how this 
settlement might operate on, or be in any way compensated to, the 
different States of the confederacy. I should, however, add my 
unfeigned belief that what I have proposed will appear reasonable 
with reference to the interests of the State of INIaine considered 
singly. That the proposition, taken as a whole, will be satisfactory 
to the country at large, I can entertain no doubt. 

I abstain from noticing here the boundaries further west, which I 
am prepared to consider and to settle, because they seem to form 
part of a case which it will be more convenient to treat separately. 

In the course of these discussions, much anxiety has been ex- 
pressed that Maine should be assured of some means of comn)uni- 
cation by the St. John, more especially for the conveyance of her 
lumber. This subject I am very willing to consider, being sensible 
of the great importance of it to that State, and that the friendly and 
peaceful relations between neig!;boring countries can not be better 
secured than by reciprocally providing for all their wants and inter- 
ests. Lumber must for many years be the principal produce of the 
extensive valley of the Aroostook and of the southern borders of 
the St. John : and it is evident that this article of trade being 
worth anything, must mainly depend iT|X)n its having access to the 
sea through that river. It is furllier evident that there can be no 
such access under any arrangement otherwise than by the consent 
of the Province of New Brunswick. It is my wish to seek an 
early opportunity of considering, with some person, well acquainted 
with the commerce of that country, what can be done to give it the 
greatest possible freedom and extent, without trenching too much on 
the fiscal .regulations of the two countries. But, in the meantime, 
in order to meet at once the urgent wants and wishes of INIaine in 
this respect, I would engage that, on the final settlement of these 
differences, all lumber and produce of the forest of the tributary 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 15 

waters of the St. John shall be received freely without duty, and 
dealt with in every respect like the same articles of New Brunswick. 
I can not now say positively whether I may be able to go further, but 
this seems to be what is principally required. Suggestions have at 
times been thrown out of making the port and river of St. John 
free to the two countries, but I think you will be sensible that this 
could not be done without some reciprocity for the trade of the St. 
John in ports of the United States, and that, in endeavoring to 
regulate this, we should be embarking in an intricate question, much 
and often discussed between the two countries. It can not also fail 
to occur to you, that joint rights in the same harbors and waters 
must be a fruitful source of dissension, and that it behooves us to 
be careful and not to sow the seeds of future differences in the set- 
tlement of those of our own day. 

I have now stated, as I was desired to do, my views of the terms 
on which, it appears to me, that this settlement may be made. It 
must be sufficiently evident that I have not treated the subject in 
the ordinary form of a bargain, where the party making the pro- 
posal leaves himself something to give up. The case would not 
admit of this, even if I could bring myself, so to act. It would 
have been useless for me to ask what I know could not be yielded ; 
and I can unfeignedly say that, even if your vigilance did not forbid 
me to expect to gain any undue advantage over you, I sliould have 
no wish to do so. The treaty we have to make will be subjected 
to the scrutiny of a jealous and criticising public, and it would ill 
answer its main purpose of producing and perpetuating harmony 
and good will, if its provisions were not considered by good and 
reasonable men to make a just and equitable settlement of this long 
continued controversy. 

Peiinit me, sir, to conclude with the assurance of my distin- 
guished consideration. 

ASHBURTON. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, he, Sec, Sec. 



16 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

No. 3. Rejection of the British proposition hy the Maine Com- 
missioners. — Proposition of the Maine Commissioners. 



The Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, June 29, 184:2. 

Sir: — The undersigned, commissioners of IMaine, have given to 
the letter of Lord Ashbiirton, addressed to you, under date of the 
'21st insta;it, and by you comnjunicated to them, all the considera- 
tion which the importance of the subject of which it treats, the 
views it expresses, and the proposition it submits to you, demand. 

There are passages in his lordship's communication, the exact 
extent of the meaning of which the undersigned are not quite sure 
that they fully understand. 

In speaking of the inhabitants on the south side of the St. John, 
in the Madavvaska settlement, he says : " I cannot, in any case, 
abandon the obvious interest of these people." Again, in speaking 
of the proposition submitted by him, he remarks: "I have not 
treated the subject in the ordinary form of a bargain, vv'here the party 
making the proposal leaves himself something to give up. The case 
would not admit of this, even if I could bring myself, so to act." 

If his lordship's meaning is, that the pro[)osed boundary, by 
agreement or conventional line, between the State of Maine and 
the Province of New Brunswick, must, at all events, be established 
on the south side of the St. John, extending from the due north 
line to Fish I'iver, and at a distance back from the river, so as to 
include the Madawasda settlement, and that the adoption of such 
a line. is a sine qua non on the part of the British Government, the 
commissioners on the part of the State of Maine feel it their duty 
as distinctly to say, that any attempt at an amicable adjustment of 
the controversy respecting the northeastern boundary on that basis, 
with the consent of Maine, would be entirely fruitless. 

The people of Maine have a deep-settled conviction and the 
fullest confidence in the justice of their claim, to its utmost extent ; 
yet, being appealed to as a constituent member of the American 
Union, and called upon, as such, to yield something in a spirit of 
patriotism for the common good, and to listen, in a spirit of peace, 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 17 

of accommodation, and good neighborhood, to propositions for an 
amicable settlement of the existing controversy, they have cheer- 
fully and promptly responded to the appeal. Her Governor and 
Legislature, in good faith, immediately ndopted the measures neces- 
sary on her part, with a view to relinquish to Great Britain such 
portion of territory and jurisdiction as might be needed by her for 
her accommodation, on such terms and for such equivalents as might 
be mutually satisfactory. Beyond this, nothing more was supposed 
to be expected or desired. During the negotiations at Ghent the 
Biitish commissioners, in a communication to the American com- 
missioners, dated October S, I8i4, distinctly avow that the British 
Government never required all that portion of Massachusetts inter- 
vening between the Province of New Brunswick and Quebec 
should be ceded to Great Britain, but only that small jJordon of 
unsettled country which intercepts the communication between 
Halifax and Quebec. So his lordship, in his communication, ad- 
mits that " the reasons which have induced the British Government 
to maintain their rights" (claim) " in this controversy" are, " the 
establishing a good boundary between our two countries, so as to 
])revent collisions and dispute, and an unobstructed communication 
and connexion of our colonies with each other." Again : looking, 
as he says, on the map, for such a boundary, "whh reference to 
the sole object of Great Britain, as already described, the line of 
the St. John, from where the north line from the St. Croix strikes 
it, up to some one of its sources, seems evidently to suit both par- 
ties," &c. Indeed, the portion of territory which Great Britain 
needs for her accommodation is so perfectly obvious, that no mate- 
rial difference of opinion, it is believed, has ever been expressed on 
the subject. It is that portion which lies north of the St. John 
and east of the Madawaska rivers, with a strip of convenient width 
on the west side of the latter river, and of the lake from which it 
issues. 

Sent here, then, under this state of things and with these views, 

by the Legislature of Maine, in a spirit of peace and conciliation, 

her commissioners were surprised and pained to be repelled, as it 

I were, in the outset, by such a proposition as his lordship has sub- 



18 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

mitted to you. On carefully analyzing it, it will be seen that, in 
addition to all the territory needed by Great Britain for her accom- 
modation, as stated and admitted by her own authorities and agents, 
it requires that Maine should further yield a valuable territory, of 
more than fifty miles in extent, lying along the south side of the St. 
John, extending from the due north line westerly to Fish river, 
and so back from the river St. John, as it is understood, to the 
Eagle lakes, and probably to the Little Madavvaska and Aroostook. 
Speaking of this branch of the proposition, his lordship treats it 
merely as " departing to this inconsiderable extent from the marked 
line of the river St. John." His lordship does not state how 
much further up the river he contemplates going. His language 
implies that the distance to Fish river, although over fifty miles, is 
only an inconsiderable part of the whole extent contemplated. 
This part of the proposition, then, would seem to imply a relin- 
quishment also, on the part of Maine, of a large portion of her 
territory north of the St. John and west of the Madawaska rivers. 
In this view of the case it is due to the Governor, and Legislature. 
and people of Maine, to say that they had not expected such a 
proposition. If they had, nothing is hazarded in saying no com- 
missioners would have been sent here to receive and consider it. 
And, in this state of things, it becomes a bounden duty on the 
part of the undersigned to say to you, that if the yielding and re- 
linquishing, on the part of the State of Maine, of any portion of 
territory, however small, on the south side of the St. John, be 
with her Britannic Majesty's Government a sine qua non to an ami- 
cable settlement of the boundary of jMaine, the mission of the 
commissioners of i\Iaine is ended. They came not to throw obsta- 
cles in the way to the successful accomplishment of the great work 
you have on hand, that of consolidating an honorable peace be- 
tween two great nations, but, on the contrary, they came prepared 
to yield much, to sacrifice much on the part of Maine, to the peace 
of the Union and the interest of her sister States. If the hopes of 
the people of IMaine and of the L^nited States are to be disappoint- 
ed, it is believed the fault lies not at the door of the Governor or 
Legislature of Maine, or of her commissioners. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 19 

At the date of the earliest maps of that country, the river now 
,.,^ called the Madawaska had not acquired a distinctive name, and 
M consequently the source of that river was regarded as one of the 
'■^ sources, if not the principal source, of the St. John. On looking 
|l,' at the map, it will at once be seen that the general course of the 
St. John and Madawaska, from the mouth of the former to the 
' source of the latter, are one and the same. As connected with 
^§ tliis fact, we find that at least five different maps, published in 
g London in the years 1765, 1769, 1771, 1774, and 1775, place 
m the northwest angle of Nova Scotia on the highlands at the source 
of that branch of the St. John, then without distinctive appella- 
tion, but now known as the Madawaska. 

One of these five is specially quoted in the report of the com- 
mittee of Congress of the 16th August, 1782, so often referred to 
i j in this controversy. 

In no map of a date prior to the treaty of 1783, it is believed, 

is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia placed on the highlands at 

J the source of any branch whatever of the St. John but the Mad- 

.; awaska. Hence the proposition of the American commissioners, 

n 1782, in discussing the subject of the boundaries of the United 



% 



States, to begin at the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, on the 
highlands at the source of the St. John. Respect for the distin- 
guished men who negotiated the treaty of peace of 1783 would 
induce the undersigned to renew the proposition, so far as regards 
adopting the Madawaska as a boundary, were it not, that, being 
prepared to yield all that is needed for the accommodation of Great 
Britain, they are aware that a strip on the west side of that river 
is necessary to that object. The particular map quoted in the 
report above mentioned is that of Emanuel Bowen, geographer to 
the King, published in 1775, in which the Penobscot and a line 
drawn from one of its sources, crossing the St. John, to the source 
of that branch now called the Madawaska, are distinctly laid down 
as the western boundary of Nova Scotia. So in all the maps which 
place the northwest angle of Nova Scotia on the highlands at the 
source of the St. John, those highlands and that source are on 
the north side of the Walloostook, which is now known to be the 



«0 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

main branch of the St. John. The inference or assumption, then, 
that it was not the intention of the commissioners who negotiated 
the treaty of peace that any portion of the valley or waters of the 
St. John's should be included within the limits of the United States, 
because the American negotiators of that treaty proposed the north- 
west angle of Nova Scotia, on the highlands at the source of the 
St. John as the place of beginning, in establishing the boundaries 
of the United States, is, it is believed, wholly unwarranted. The 
fact, on the contrary, as it seems to the undersigned, disproves any 
such intention or supposition on the part of the American commis- 
sioners. 

The British commissaries, Messrs. Mildmay and De Cosne, in 
their reply of the 23d of January, 1753, to the French commissa- 
ries, say : " We have sufficiently proved, first, that Acadia [Nova 
Scotia] has had an inland limit from the earliest times ; and, sec- 
ondly, that that limit has ever been the river St. Lawrence." At 
that time, then, the British Government contended that the north- 
west angle of Nova Scotia was formed by the river St. Lawrence, 
as one line, and a line drawn north from the St. CroiK to the St. 
Lawrence as the other; and this is in conformity with the position 
assigned to it on Mitchell's map and some others. By the grant to 
Sir William Alexander, the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was 
also placed at the river St. Lawrence, although its precise locality 
on that river is not determined by the language of the grant. 

The French commissaries, on their part, contended that the lim- 
its of Canada extended on the south side of the St. Lawrence, so 
as to embrace the territory watered by the rivers that emptied 
themselves into the river St. Lawrence. " Les pays dont les eaux 
vont se rendre dans le fleuve St. Laurent." The commissions 
granted to the Governors of Canada, and all the public documents 
issued by the authority of the French Government, fully sustain 
their position. There is no ground, say they, for entertaining a 
doubt that all the commissions granted by the King, for the Gov- 
ernment of Canada, were conceived in the same terms. In the 
splendid Universal Atlas, published at Paris by De Vaugondy Si- 
Son, in 1757, there is a map dated 1755, and referred to expressly 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 21 

by the author, who was geographer to the King, as illustrating the 
dispute between France and Great Britain, in regard to the boun- 
daries of their respective territories. ..^'On this map the dividing 
ridge, or highlands, is placed where the United States have ever 
contended it is only to be found ; and what is deserving of notice 
is, that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is there placed on these 
highlands, at the head of the lake there called Metaousta ; the line 
separating Nova Scotia from New England being drawn through 
the centre of that lake, to the source of the St. Croix. The dis- 
])utes above referred to having led to a war between France and 
Great Britain, France finally ceded to Great Britain, in February, 
1763, Canada, and abandoned all claim to Nova Scotia and the 
whole territory in controversy between the two powers. On the 
7tli of October, 1763, his Britannic majesty issued his proclama- 
tion, defining the southern boundary of Canada, or the province of 
Quebec, and establishing it where the French government had al- 
ways contended it was. Immediately afterward, he also defined and 
established the western limit of Nova Scotia, alleging, by way of 
justification of certain pretensions which had been put forward in op- 
position to Massachusetts, in regard to the Penobscot as a boundary, 
that, although he might have removed the line as far west as the 
Penobscot, yet he would limit himself at the St. Croix. According- 
ly, the western boundary of Nova Scotia was, in November, 1763, 
defined and established as follows : " By a line," Sic, " across the 
entrance of the bay of Fundy, to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by 
the said river to its source, and by a line drawn due north from 
thence to the southern boundary of our province of Quebec." The 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia was, by these two documents, 
established in November, 1763, and defined to be the angle formed 
by the line last described, and the line which " passes along the 
highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the 
said river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea, and 
also along the north coast of the bay des Chaleurs." We now see 
wherefore it was that the distinguished men who negotiated the 
treaty of peace were so particular in describing the precise position 
and giving so exact a definition of the northwest angle of Nova 



22 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

Scotia, mentioned in the treaty. They distinctly and explicitly 
state that motive to be, that " all disputes which might arise in 
future, on the subject of the boundaries of the United States, mav 
be prevented." Their starting bound or point of departure is iho 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia. Here the question presents itself, 
what northwest angle ? They describe it, not that northwest angle 
which in several maps is laid down on the highlands, at the Mada- 
waska source of the St. John ; not that northwest angle on the 
southern bank of the river St. Lawrence, laid down on Mitchell's 
map, and so strenuously contended for by the British Governnieni 
and British commissaries in their dispute with France ; not tliat 
northwest angle on the river St. Lawrence, described in the charier 
or grant by King James to Sir William Alexander; but the north- 
west angle of Nova Scotia defined and established in November, 
1763, "to wit: that angle which is formed by a line drawn due 
north from the source of St. Croix river, to the highlands, Szc: 
and, further that there might be no ground for reviving the old 
pretension in regard to the Penobscot, or any other western river 
being intended as the St. Croix, the river St. Croix intended in the 
treaty is declared to have its mouth in die bay of Fundy. Ps'or is 
there any pretence of any doubt or question having been raised, 
until long after the treaty of peace, as to what highlands were 
intended in the proclamation of 1763, as constituting the southern 
boundary of Quebec. So far from it, the Parliament of Great 
Britain in 1774 passed the Quebec act, which was one of the 
grievances complained of by the colonies, and which confirmed the 
boundaries, so far as the matter under consideration is concerned, 
defined and established by that proclamation. Of these two pub- 
lic acts the American commissioners were not ignorant nor misin- 
formed. They are both expressly referred to and mentioned in 
the report of August 16, 1782, already mentioned. To find these 
highlands, the statesman and jurist, who has no other object in view 
than to expound the treaty according to its terms and provisions, 
uninfluenced by any secret bias or preconceived theory, will, it is 
believed, begin, not at the mouth or source of the St. Croix, but 
on the bank of the river St, Lawrence, at a point north of th& 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 23 

source of the river St. Croix, and following the due north line, so 
called, southward, he will find no difficulty in discovering the line 
of the " Versants,^' from which issue the rivers that empty them- 
selves into the river St. Lawrence. The whole and exclusive 
object and intent of the proclamation of 1763, so far as relates to 
this matter of boundary in that section of country, was not in any 
way to affect or alter the limits of jurisdiction over the territory 
lying south of that line of "Versants" but only to cut off from 
Nova Scotia and Massachusetts that portion of territory which was 
watered by the rivers which empty themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence. Accordingly, the due north line or boundary between 
Nova Scotia and Massachusetts is described as extending from 
the source of the St. Croix *' to the southern boundary of our Pro- 
vince of Quebec." 

The commissioners of Maine do not consider themselves as sent 
here to argue the question of right in regard to the conflicting 
claims to tlie disputed territory, nor to listen to an argument in op- 
position to the claim of Maine. Their mission contemplated a far 
different and more conciliatory object. They have, however, felt 
themselves compelled, in justice to Maine, to reply to two posi- 
tions assumed by Lord Ashburton, the soundness of which, with great 
deference and respect for his lordship, they cannot admit. First, 
that " it was the intention of the parties to the treaty of peace of 
1783 to leave to Great Britain, by their description of boundaries, 
the whole waters of the river St. John." Secondly, " that the 
treaty of 1783 was not executable according to its strict expression." 
His lordship also speaks of "a volume of additional controversial mat- 
ter, which he has not communicated, but which he has brought with 
him, and much of which would be of no inconsiderable weight and 
importance, if controversy were our object." Among the matter re- 
ferred to in that volume, the undersigned believe they have reason to 
conjecture will be found a map entitled " North America, with the 
New Discoveries," by William Fadcn, geographer to the King, pub- 
lished in the year 1785. That map, a copy of which is now before 
the undersigned, communicated by you, extends the British posses- 
sions so as to include the waters of the St. John, and dispenses with 



•24 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

the due north line of the treaty altogether. The map referred to i? 
a small one, of small pretensions. It is, however, somewhat re- 
markable that the same William Faden published, in 1783, a map, 
prepared with great care, entitled "The United States of North 
America, with the British and Spanish territories, according to the 
treaty," in which he lays down the boundary of Quebec according 
to the act of 1774, and the boundary of the United States in pre- 
cise atcordance with the American claim. Fie was not at that 
time geographer to the King. It is well known that difficulties 
very soon after the treaty of peace began to spring up between 
the United States and Great Britain, which became more and more 
exasperated, until the conclusion of the treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay. 
During that period, the boundaries of the United States became 
more restricted on more British maps than the one published by Mr. 
Faden. How far the new light let in upon him by the feeling of 
the times and his new position enhghtened the mind of Mr. Faden 
in making his new discoveries, it is neitlier our duty nor our dispo- 
sition to discuss. Mr. Faden and others were only imitating in 
this particular what had been done some thirty years before, during 
the controversy between France and Great Britain ; and again in 
the subsequent one, between the Crown and Massachusetts, when 
the officers of the Crown were endeavoring to reclaim the territory 
east of the Penobscot. 

As they have been assured that Lord Ashburton is restrained by 
his instructions from yielding the island of Grand Manan, or any 
of the islands in Passamaquoddy bay, or even any portion of the 
narrow strip of territory which lies between the due north line from 
the source of the St. Croix and the St. John river, above Eel 
river, so called, as an equivalent for any portion of the territory 
claimed by Maine as within her boundaries, her commissioners, on 
their part, feel themselves constrained to say, that the portion of 
territory within the limits of Maine, as claimed by her, which they 
are prepared, in a spirit of peace and good neighborhood, to yield for 
the accommodation of Great Britain, must be restrained and con- 
fined to such portion only, and in such reasonable extent, as is ne- 
cessary to secure to Great Britain " an unobstructed communication 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 25 

and connexion of her colonies with each other." It appears, by 
his communication to you, that his lordship proposes to yield the 
disputed territory, claimed by New Hampshire, at the sources of the 
Connecticut river; the strip of disputed territory, at the head of 
Vermont, in the possession of that State, north of the forty fifth 
parallel of latitude ; and the strip of disputed territory, embracing 
Rouse's point, on lake Champlain, north of the same parallel, in 
the possession of the State of New York ; notwithstanding these 
have been decided by the arbiter to belong of right to Great Britain. 
Now the undersigned are fully aware of the importance of hav- 
ing all these difficuties, in regard to boundaries, amicably adjusted, 
and that it is highly desirable to the United States to have them so 
adjusted, and to the particular States interested to be confirmed 
and quieted in their respective limits and possessions. But it can 
not have escaped your attention, that all this is proposed to be done, 
partly at the expense of Massachusetts, but principally at the ex- 
pense of Maine. The only thing in the nature of an equivalent 
offered to Maine and Massachusetts relates to a concession by Great 
Britain of the right of transporting the produce of the forest, with- 
out duty, down the St. John. It is not the intention of the under- 
signed to depreciate or underrate the value of such a concession ; 
but it is contended that it is a privilege as desirable to New Bruns- 
wick as it is to Maine and Massachusetts. It is to the territory of 
Maine, watered by the St. John and its tributary streams, that 
the city of St. John must look for the principal material to sus- 
tain her external commerce, for her means to pay for the supplies 
she receives from the mother country. The unobstructed naviga- 
tion of the St. John for the transportation of the products of the 
forest, free of toll or duty of any kind whatever, would be a con- 
cession mutually advantageous to Maine and Massachusetts on the 
one part, and to Great Britain and New Brunswick on the other ; 
but being mutually advantageous, it ought not, perhaps, to be treat- 
ed exactly in the character of an equivalent. Yielding, however, 
to the force of the considerations which have been referred to, con- 
siderations which affect materially the interests of Maine and Mas- 
sachusetts as members of the Union, and assuming it for granted, 



26 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

and as a condition, that the United States themselves will furnish 
to the two States such an equivalent as in justice and equity they 
ought to do, the undersigned, with the assent and concurrence of 
the commissioners of Massachusetts, propose the following as a 
conventional line, or line by agreement, between the United States 
and the State of Maine on the one part, and Great Britain and the 
territories of her Britannic Majesty on the other part, viz : beginning 
at the middle of the main channel of the river St. John, where 
the due north line from the source of the river St. Croix crosses the 
St. John ; thence westerly, by the middle of the main channel of 
the St. John, to a point three miles westerly of the mouth of 
the river Madawaska ; thence, by a straight line, to the outlet of 
Long lake ; thence westeily, by a direct line, to the point where 
the river St. Francis empties itself into lake Pohenagamook ; thence 
continuing in the same direct line, to the highlands which divide 
the waters emptying themselves into the river du Loup from those 
which empty themselves into the river St. Francis. 

In proposing this line, the following reasons have presented them- 
selves to the undersigned for adopting it as a conventional line, or 
line by agreement, in preference to any other: 

1st. It yields to Great Britain all she needs to secure to her "an 
unobstructed communication and connexion of her colonies with 
each other ;" and connected with the unobstructed and free navi- 
gation of the St. John, seems to meet the legitimate wants of all 
parties. 

2d. Tlie most natural boundary from the due north line to the 
hio-hlands of the treaty would be the St. John and the Madawaska 
to its source, as first proposed by the American commissioners who 
negotiated the peace of 1783. But as that boundary, taken in its 
whole extent, would cut off the communication between the British 
Colonies at the Grand Portage, the line here proposed removes that 
difficulty. At or near the point where the proposed line leaves the 
St. John, which, from the due north line from the St Croix, pur- 
sues a northwesterly course upward, the river suddenly turns, and 
trends for a distance of about five miles neariy south, and thence for 
its whole course upward to its source treads southerly of west. To 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 27 

jiursue the line of the St. John further west than the jioint iiuii- 
cated, which is about three miles above ihe mouth of the Mada- 
waska, would be to adopt an angular line projecting itself into the 
American lerritoiy. The outlet of Long lake is proposed as a nat- 
ural and permanent bound which can not be mistaken; and for the 
same reasoii the inlel of [-.ake Pohenagamook is also proj)osed, and 
the line being con;i:;'.i'-d to the highlands rv?.moves all jjossible 
giound of misapprehension and controversy. 

3d. As Great Britain has restrained her minister plenipotentiary 
from granting any territorial equivalent, to be incorporated into the 
territorial limits of Maine, any further concession of teriitory on tlie 
l)art of Maine couid hardly, it is apprehended, be expected from 
her. 

in making the propooltioa above submitted on their part, in con- 
nexion with a concessioii on the part of Great Britain, of th(! 
unobstructed navigation of the St. John and all its branches and 
tributaries, which in any part flow from the territory of the United 
States, for the transportation of the lumber and jiroducts of the 
forest, free of toll or dut\', the undersigned had supposed it (juite 
possible that they had misapprehended the meaning intended to be 
conveyed by the expression of Lord Ashburton, where he speaks 
of "some one of the sources of the St. John." But they have 
now just learaed (informally) that the expression was used by him 
advisedly, meaning thereby some one of the sources of that river sit- 
uated in the vicinity of the sources of the Penobscot and Chaudiere. 
His proposition, therefore, extends to a yielding, on the pait of 
Maine, of the whole territory on the north side of the St. John, 
ii-om the due nortli line to its source; and this, too, without any 
territorial equivalent to Maine. With this explanation, the lan- 
guage of Lord Ashburton in calling the southera border of the St. 
John, from the due noith line to the mouth of Fish river, an " in- 
considerable extent," is more readily understood. To this part of 
the proposition there is only one reply. Whatever may be the 
solicitude of the undersigned that the difficulties, which have arisei> 
in regard to the boundaries of Maine, may be amicably and definitive- 
ly arranged, the proposition, as now explained and understood, can 
not be acceded to. 



28 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

In making the offer they have submitted, the undersigned are 
sensible their proposition involves a sacrifice of no inconsiderable 
portion of the just claims and expectations of Maine. It is made 
in the spirit of peace — of conciliation. It is made to satisfy her 
sister States that Maine is not pertinacious or unreasonable, but is 
desirous of peace, and ready to make large sacrifices for the general 
good. 

Before closing this communication, the undersigned feel it their 
duty to say something, by way of explanation, of their views in 
regard to the French settlers at Madawaska. In any treaty which 
may be made with Great Britain, afiecting these people, the grants 
which have been made to them by New Brunswick may and ought 
to be confirmed to them in fee simple, with such provision in regard 
to the possessory rights acquired by other actual settlers there, as 
may be just and equitable : and also the right may be reserved to 
the settlers on both banks of the river to elect, within some reason- 
able period, and determine of which government, the individual sig- 
nifying their election, will remain or become citizens or subjects. 
If, then, they should have any preference, they will have it in their 
power, on mature consideration and reflection, to decide for them- 
selves, and act accordingly. The hard lot and sufferings of these 
people, and of their fathers, give them a claim to our sympa- 
thies. The atrocious cruelties practised upon their ancestors are 
matters of history ; the appalling details of them are among their 
traditions. The fathers and the mothers have taught them to 
their children. When fleeing from their oppressors, in 1785, they 
settled down in the wilderness at Madawaska, they believed and 
understood themselves to be within the limits and jurisdiction 
of the United States — a people, of whom France had been the 
friend and ally in the war which had just terminated in their 
independence, and who was still the friend and ally of France in 
peace. Their history since that period had lost little of its interest. 
Too few in number, too weak in resources, too remote to expect or 
receive aid, they have submitted to whatever master assumed au- 
thority over them. With a knowledge of their history, and the 
wrongs they and their ancestors have sulfercd, it will be difficult for 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. '■29 

the people of Maine to bring themselves into the belief that these 
people are opposed to living under the mild and gentle sway of our 
free institutions. It will be equally difficult for the people of Maine 
to satisfy themselves, that it is only from a lively and disinterested 
sympathy for these poor Frenchmen, that the governnunt of Great 
Britain is so solicitous to retain possession of t!ie south bank of the 
St. John, extending from the due north line more than fifty miles 
up to Fish river. On the best consideration they have been able 
to give to this subject, the undersigned can see nothing in the condi- 
tion or circumstances of these settlers which would justify them in 
abandoning the very obvious and only natural boundary, to adopt 
one that must be altogether arbitrary. 

The undersigned avail themselves of this occasion to tender to 
Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, assurances of their distinguished 
consideration and respect. 

VVM. P. PREBLE, 
EDWARD KAVANAGH, 
EDWARD KENT, 
JOHN OTIS. 
Hon. Daniel Webster, 

Secretary of State. 



No. 4. Rejection of the British proposition by the United States. 
American proposition. 



Mr. WeLster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, > 
Washington, July 8, 1842. y 
My Lord : — Your notes of tlic 13th and i21st of June were 
duly received. 

In the first of these you correctly say, that in our conferences on 
the boundary question we have both been of opinion that no ad- 
vantage would be gained by resorting, at this time, to the discussion 



so NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

at length of the grounds on which eacli party considers lis claim of 
right to rest. At the same time you deem it expedient, neverthe- , 
less, to offer some observations calculated, in your judgment, to 
repel a supposed allegation, or suggestion, that this controversy 
only began in 1814; that up to that period the American claim 
was undisputed ; and that the English claim, as now set forth, is 
founded merely in motives of interest. Nothing is more natural 
than that your lordship should desire to repel an imputation which 
would impeach the sincerity and good faith of your government, 
and all the weight which justice and candor require is given to 
your lordship's observations in this respect. It is not my purpose, 
nor do I conceive it pertinent to the occasion, to go into any con- 
sideration of the facts and reasoning presented by you, to show the 
good faith and sincerity of England in the claim asserted by her. 
Any such discussion would be a departure from the question ot 
right nov^ subsisting between the two Governments, and would be 
more especially unfit for an occasion in which the parties are ap- 
proaching each other in a friendly spirit, with the hope of termin- 
ating the controversy by agreement. Follovving your lordship's 
example, however, I must be permitted to say, that few questions 
have ever arisen under this Government in regard to which a strong- 
er or more general conviction was felt that the country was in the 
right, than this question of the northeastern boundary. To say 
nothing of the sentiments of the Governments and people of the 
States more directly interested, whose opinions may bo supposed 
capable of bias, both Houses of Congress, after full and repeated 
consideration, have affirmed the validity of the American claim, by 
a unanimity experienced on very kw other subjects, and the gen- 
eral judgment of the whole people seems to be the same way. 
Abstaining from all historical facts, all contemporaneous expositions, 
and all external arguments and circumstances, I will venture to 
present to your lordship a very condensed view of the reasons 
which produce in this country the conviction, that a boundary line 
may be ascertained, run, and delineated with precision, under and 
according to the words of the stipulation in the treaty of 1783 ; that 
no doubt can be raised by any part of that stipulation which other 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 31 

parts of it do not remove or explain, and that a line so run would 
include all that the United States claim. This view is presented 
by a series of short propositions. 

1. The northwest angle of Nova Scotia is the thing to be sought 
for and found. 

2. That angle is to be ascertained by running a line due north 
from the source of the St. Croix river till that line reaches the 
highlands, and where such north line intersects the highlands, there 
is the angle ; and thence the line is to run along the said highlands ; 
which said highlands divide those rivers which empty themselves 
into the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic 
ocean. The angle required, therefore, is an angle made by the 
intersection of a due north line with highlands, from one slope of 
which the rivers empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, and 
from the other into the Atlantic ocean. 

3. Supposing it to be matter of doubt whether the St. John 
and the Restigouch are rivers falling into the Atlantic ocean, in the 
sense of the treaty, then the rule of just interpretation is, that if one 
element or one part in the description be uncertain, it is to be 
explained by others which are certain, if there be such others. 
Now, there is no doubt as to the rivers which fall into the St. 
Lawrence. They are certain, and to their sources the north line is 
to run, since at their sources the highlands required by the treaty 
do certainly exist. And departing for a moment from the rule just 
prescribed to myself, I will remind your lordship that the joint 
commissioners and the agents of the two Governments in 1817, in 
giving the surveyors instructions for finding these highlands, direct- 
ed them, in terms, to proceed upon a due north line " till they 
should arrive at some one of the streams connected with the river 
St. Lawrence, " and then to explore the highlands from that point 
to the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut river. It is indis- 
putable that a line run according to these instructions, thus given 
by the commissioners and agents of both Governments, would give 
to the United States all that they have at any time claimed. 

4. It is certain that by the treaty the eastern boundary of the 
United States, from the head of the St. Croix, is to be a due north. 

D 



32 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

and south line. And it is equally certain that this line is to run 
north till it reaches highlands from whose northern watershed the 
rivers flow into the river St. Lawrence. 

5. These two things being, one mathematically, and the other 
physically certain in themselves, and capable of being precisely 
marked and delineated, explain or control the uncertainty, if there 
be uncertainty, in the other part or element of the description. 

6. The British argument, assuming that the bay of Fundy, and 
more especially the bay of Chaleurs, are not the Atlantic ocean, 
within the meaning of the treaty, insists that the rivers flowing into 
these bays are not, therefore, in the sense of the treaty, rivers fall- 
ing into the Atlantic, and, therefore, the highlands to which the 
United States claim, have not that southern or eastern watershed 
which the treaty calls for ; and as it is agreed, nevertheless, that we 
must somewhere find highlands, and go to them, whose northern 
waters run into the St. Lawrence, the conclusion is, that the dif- 
ferent parts of the description in the treaty do not cohere, and that, 
therefore, the treaty cannot be executed. 

7. Our answer to this, as is obvious from what has already been 
said, is twofold. 

First. What may be doubtful in itself, may be made certain by 
other things which are certain ; and inasmuch as the treaty does 
certainly demand a due north line, and does certainly demand the 
extension of that line to highlands from whose northern sides the 
rivers flow hito the river St. Lawrence, these two clear require- 
ments make it plain that the parties to the treaty considered; in fact, 
the rivers flowing from the south or east of the said highlands, to 
be rivers falling into the Atlantic ocean, because they have placed 
St. Lawrence rivers, and the Atlantic rivers in contradistinction to 
each other, as rivers running in opposite directions, but with their 
sources in the same highlands. Rivers fed from these highland 
fountains, running north or northwest, are rivers emptying them- 
selves into the St. Lawrence ; and rivers arising from the same 
fountains, and running in an opposite direction,, seem to be as clearly 
meant to be designated by the character of Atlantic rivers. And, 
as strongly corroborating this view of the subject, allow me to call 
your lordship's attention to two facts : 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 88 

1. The coast of the Atlantic ocean, from Penobscot river north- 
easterly, and the western shore of the bay of Fundy, which is but 
a continuation of the coast, and is in a line with it, is very nearly 
parallel to the course of the river St. Lawrence through the same 
latitudes. This is obvious from the map. 

2. The rivers which, from their sources in the same ridge, flow 
respectively into the St. Lawrence and into the bay of Fundy, 
and even into the bay of Chaleurs, run with remarkable uniformity 
in directions almost exactly opposite, as if hastening away from a 
common origin to their different destinations by the shortest course. 
The only considerable exception to this is the northern sweep of 
the upper part of the St. John ; but the smaller streams flowing 
into this part of that river from the west still strictly obey the gen- 
eral rule. 

Now if, from a certain general line on the face of the country, 
or as delineated on the map, rivers are found flowing away in op- 
posite directions, however strongly it may be asserted that the 
mountains or eminences are but isolated elevations, it is, neverthe- 
less, absolutely certain that such a line does in fact define a ridge 
of highlands which turns the waters both ways. 

And, as the commissioners in 1783 had the map before them; 
as they saw the parallelism of the seacoast and the course of the 
St. Lawrence ; as they saw rivers rising from a common line and 
running some north or northwest, the others south or southeast ; and 
as they speak of some of these rivers as emptying themselves into 
the river St. Lawrence, and of the others as falling into the Atlan- 
tic ocean ; and as they make no third class, is there a reasonable 
doubt in which class they intend to comprehend all the rivers run- 
ning in a direction from the St. Lawrence, whether falling immedi- 
ately or only ultimately in the Atlantic ocean ? 

If there be nothing incoherent or inconsequential in this chain of 
remarks, it will satisfy your lordship, 1 trust, that it is not without 
reason that American opinion has settled firmly in the conviction 
of the rights of the American side of the question ; and I forbear 
from going into the consideration of the mass of other arguments 
and proofs, for the same reasons which restrain your lordship from 



34 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

entering into an extended discussion of the question, as well as be- 
cause your lordship will have an opportunity of perusing a paper 
addressed to me by the commissioners of Maine, which strongly 
presents the subject on other grounds and in other lights. 

I am now to consider your lordship's note of the 21st June. 
Before entering upon this, I have the President's instructions to say, 
that he fully appreciates the motives which induced your lordship, 
personally, to undertake your present mission ; that he is quite 
aware that your public life has been distinguished by efforts to 
maintain peace and harmony between the two countries ; that he 
quite well recollects that your exertions were employed to prevent 
the late war, and that he doubts not the sincerity of your declara- 
tion, that nothing could have drawn you from your retirement and 
induced you to engage in your present undertaking, but the hope 
of being of service to your country, and to our common race. And 
I have the utmost pleasure, my lord, in acknowledging the frank- 
ness, candor, and plain dealing, which have characterized your 
official intercourse with this government ; nor am I permitted or 
inclined to entertain any doubt of your lordship's entire conviction, 
as expressed by yourself, as to the merits of this controversy and 
the difficulties of the case. The question before us is, whether 
these confident opinions, on both sides, of the rightful nature and 
just strength of our respective claims, will permit us, while a desire 
to preserve harmony, and a disposition to yield liberally to mutual 
conveniences so strongly incite us, to come together and to unite 
on a line by agreement. 

It appears to be your lordship's opinion that the line of the St. 
John, from the point where the north line from the St. Croix 
strikes that river, up to some one of its sources, evidently suits both 
parties, with an exception, however, of that part of the Madawaska 
settlement which is on the south side of the St. John, which you 
propose should be included in the British territory. That, as a line 
by agreement, the St. John for some distance upward from its inter- 
section by the line running north from the St. Croix would be a very 
convenient boundary for the two parties, is readily admitted ; but it 
is a very important question how far up, and to which of the sources 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 35 

of this river this line should extend. Above Madawaska the course 
of the river turns to the south, and stretching away toward the 
sources of the Penobscot, leaves far to the north the line of com- 
munication between New Brunswick and Canada. That line de- 
parts from the St. John altogether near Madawaska, and keeping 
principally upon the left or north bank of the Madawaska, and 
proceeding by way of the Temiscouata lake, reaches the St. Law- 
rence at the mouth of the river du Loup. 

There are, then, two important subjects for consideration : 
First. Whether the United States can agree to cede, relinquish, 
or cease to claim, any part of the territory west of the north line 
from the St. Croix and south of the St. John. And I think it 
but candid to say, at once, that we see insurmountable objections to 
admitting the line to come south of the river. Your lordship's ob- 
servation upon the propriety of preserving the unity of Madawaska 
settlement, are, in a great measure, just and altogether founded, I 
doubt not, in entirely good motives. They savor of humanity and 
a kind regard to the interests and feelings of individuals. But the 
difficulties seem insuperable. The river, as your lordship remarks, 
seems a natural boundary, and in this part of it, to run in a conven- 
ient direction. It is a line always clear and indisputable. If we 
depart from it where shall we find another boundary, equally natural, 
equally clear, and conforming to the same general course? A de- 
parture from the line of the river, moreover, would open new ques- 
tions about equivalents, which it would probably be found impractica- 
ble to settle. If your lordship was at liberty, as I understand you 
not to be, to cede the whole or a part of the territory, commonly 
called the strip, lying east of the north line, and west of the St. John, 
considerations might be found in such a cession, possibly, for some 
new demarcations west of the north line and south of the river. 
But in the present posture of things I can not hold out the expecta- 
tion to your lordship that anything south of the river can be yielded. 
And, perhaps, the inconvenience to the settlers on the southern 
bank, of making the river the boundary, are less considerable 
than your lordship supposes. These settlers are scattered along a 
considerable extent, very likely soon to connect themselves with 

D* 



36 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

whomsoever may come to live near them ; and, though of different 
origin, and some difference of rehgion, not Hkely, on the whole. 
to be greatly dissimilar from other borderers occupying the neigh- 
boring territory, their rights of property would, of course, be all 
preserved, both of inheritance and alienation ; and, if some of them 
should choose to retain the social and political relations under which 
they now are, their removal, for that purpose, to the north bank, 
drawing after it no loss of property, or of means of subsistence, 
would not be a great hardship. Your lordship suggests the incon- 
venience of dividing a municipality by a line of national boundary ; 
and certainly there is force in the observation ; but if, departing 
from the river, we were to establish to the south of it, an artificial 
line upon the land, there might be points on such line, at which 
people would live in numbers, on both sides ; and a mere mathe- 
matical line might thus divide villages, while it divided nations. 
The experience of the world, and our own experience, show the 
propriety of making rivers boundaries whenever their courses suit 
the general object, for the same reason that, in other cases to which 
they are applicable, mountain ranges, or ridges of highlands, are 
adopted for the same purpose ; these last being, perhaps, still more 
convenient lines of division than rivers, being equally clear and 
prominent objects, and the population of neighboring countries bor- 
dering on a mountain line of separation, being usually thin and 
inconsiderable on either side. Rivers and inland waters constitute 
the boundary between the United States and the territories of her 
Majesty, for some thousands of miles westward from the place 
where the 45th degree of north latitude intersects the St. Lawrence; 
and along this line, though occasional irregularities and outbreaks 
have taken place, always by the agency and instigation of agita- 
tors and lawless men, friends of neither country, yet it is clear that 
no better demarcation of limits could be made. And at the north- 
east, along the space through which the St. Croix constitutes the 
line of separation, controversies and confficts are not heard of; but 
similarity of language, character, and pursuits, and mutual respect 
for the rights of each other preserve the general peace. 

Upon the whole, my lord, feeling that there may be inconveni- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY 37 

ence, and perhaps a small degree of hardship, I yet can not admit 
that there is any cruelty in separating the Madawaska settlers south 
of the St. John, so far as political relations are concerned, from 
their neighbors on the north of that river. In the present state of 
society, and of peace, which exists between the two countries, the 
severance of political relations needs not to disturb social and fam- 
ily intercourse ; while high considerations, affecting both the present 
and the future, seem to me to require that, following natural indica- 
tions, we adhere to the St. John, in this part of its course, as the 
line of division. 

The next question is, how far upward this boundary ought to be 
observed, and along which of its branches. This question would 
be easily settled, if what may be called the main branch of the 
river, in this part of it, differing from the general character of the 
rivers in this region of country, did not make a sudden turn. But, 
if we consider the main branch of the St. John, that which has 
been recently usually so denominated, your lordship will observe 
that, near the mouth of the Madawaska, it turns almost at right angles, 
and pushes its sources toward those of the Penobscot. Contiguity 
and compactness of territory can hardly be preserved by following 
a stream which makes not occasional windings, but at once so great 
a deflection from its previous course. The Madawaska is one of its 
branches, or principal sources, and, as the map shows, is very much 
a continuance of the line of the principal river, from the Great 
Falls upward. The natural course would, therefore, seem to be, to 
continue along this branch. 

We understand, and indeed collect from your lordship's note, 
that, with whatever opinion of her right to the disputed territory, 
England, in asserting it, has principally in view to maintain, on her 
own soil, her accustomed line of communication between Canada 
and New Brunswick. We acknowledge the general justice and 
propriety of this object, and agree at once that, with suitable equiv- 
alents, a conventional line ought to be such as to secure it to Eng- 
land. The question, therefore, simply is, what line will secure it? 

The common communication between the provinces follows the 
course of the St. John from the Great Falls to the mouth of the 



38 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

Madawaska, and then, not turning away to the south with the course 
of the main stream, identifies itself with that of the Madawaska, 
going along with it to the Temiscouata lakes, thence along those 
lakes, and so across the highlands to the streams running into the 
St. Lawrence. And this line of communication, we are willing to 
agree, shall hereafter be within acknowledged British territory, upon 
such conditions and considerations as may be assented to. The 
Madawaska and the aforementioned lakes might conveniently con- 
stitute the boundary. But I believe it is true that, in some part of 
the distance, above the mouth of the Madawaska, it has been found 
convenient to establish the course of communication on the south 
bank of that river. This consideration may be important enough 
to justify a departure from what would otherwise be desirable, and 
the running of the line at some distance south of the Madawaska, 
observing natural monuments where it may be practicable, and thus 
leaving the whole valley of the Madawaska on the British side. 

The United States, therefore, upon the adjustment of proper 
equivalents, would not object to a line of boundary which should 
begin at the middle of the main channel of the river St. John, 
where that river is intersected by a due north line, extended from 
the source of the St. Croix, thence proceeding westerly, by the 
middle of the main channel of that river, to a point three miles 
westerly of the mouth of the Madawaska, thence by a straight line 
to the outlet of Long lake, thence westerly by a direct line to the 
point where the river St. Francis empties itself into the lake called 
Pohenagamook, thence continuing in the same direct line to the 
highlands which divide the waters falling into the River du Loup 
from those which fall into the river St. Francis. Having thus ar- 
rived at the highlands, I shall be ready to confer on the correct 
manner of following them to the northwesternmost head of the 
Connecticut river. 

Such a line as has been now described would secure to England 
a free intercourse between Canada and New Brunswick ; and, with 
the navigation of the St. John yielded to the LTnited States, would 
appear to meet the wants of all parties. Your lordship's proposi- 
tion in regard to the navigation is received as just, and as constitut- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 39 

ing, so far as it may go, a natural equivalent. Probably the use of 
the river for the transportation of the products of the forest grown 
on the American side of the line, would be equally advantageous to 
both parties, and, therefore, in granting it, no sacrifice of British 
interest would be incurred. A conviction of this, together with 
their confidence in the validity of their own claim, is very likely to 
lead the two States immediately concerned to consider their relin- 
quishment of the lands north of the line much in the light of a 
mere cession. It need not be denied that, to secure this privilege, 
and to have a right to enjoy it, free from tax, toll, or other liability 
or inability, is an object of considerable importance to the people 
of Maine. 

Your lordship intimates that, as a part of the general arrange- 
ment of boundaries, England would be willing to surrender to the 
United States Rouse's point, and all the territory heretofore sup- 
posed to be within the boundaries of New Hampshire, Vermont, 
and New York, but which a correct ascertainment of the forty fifth 
parallel of north latitude shows to be included within the British 
line. This concession is, no doubt, of some value. If made, its 
benefits would enure partly to these three States, and partly to the 
United States ; and none of it to the particular interests of Maine 
and Massachusets. If regarded, therefore, as a part of the equivalent 
for the manner of adjusting the northeastern boundary, these two last 
mentioned States would, perhaps, expect that the value, if it could 
be ascertained, should be paid to them. On this point further con- 
sideration may be necessary. 

U, in other respects, we should be able to agree on a boundary, 
the points which you refer to, connected with the ascertainment of 
the head of the Connecticut, will be attended to, and Captain Tal- 
cott, who made the exploration in that quarter, will be ready to 
communicate the result of his observations. 

I have the honor to be, with distinguished consideration, your 
obedient servant, 



DANIEL WEBSTER. 



Lord Ashburton, Sic, he, he. 



40 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

No. 5. Rejection of the American proposition by the British 
Minister. 



Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 11, 1842. 

Sir : 1 lose no time in acknowledging the receipt of the note you 
did me the honor of addressing me on the 8th instant, and I beg, in 
the first place, to say that I am duly sensible of the assurance you 
give me that the President has been pleased to appreciate the mo- 
tives which induced my present mission, and much flattered by 
your recognition of the candor and frankness which have hitherto 
marked our intercourse. 

1 had hoped that we had escaped, by mutual consent, from a re- 
turn to the endless and fruitless argument on the general question 
of the rights of our respective Governments, in the matter of the 
northeastern boundary. 

It seemed to have been decided by so many high and competent 
authorities that the precise geographical point so long looked for, 
was not to be found, that it necessarily followed that any hope of 
settlement must rest upon an amicable compromise. 

The arrival here of commissioners from Maine and Massachu- 
setts, and the admitted disposition of the two Governments, have 
given the public a very general expectation that this compromise 
might at last be effected ; and I hope you will excuse ray express- 
ing my regret that the note now before me, and the paper from the 
gentlemen from Maine, addressed to you, which accompanied it, 
should have contained so much of the renewal of the old controver- 
sy, and should not have been confined to the simple question 
whether we could or could not agree to terms of settlement. If the 
observations contained in my note of the 13th ultimo, have given 
rise to these consequences, I much regret it ; and I would now pass 
over all these more than useless discussions, and proceed at once 1o 
notice the proposals you make, if I were not apprehensive that my 
so doing might be construed into some want of respect for the par- 
ties from whom these observations have proceeded. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 41 

I will, however, endeavor to bring within a narrow compass 
what I have to say on the subject, and the more so, because, with 
all deference to you, sir, I may add, that there is little in these 
arguments that is new, or that has not been often advanced and re- 
futed during the many past years of controversy. 

I should except from this want of novelty the position, to me 
entirely new, advanced by the commissioners from Maine, that the 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which is, as you express it, " the 
thing to be sought for and found, " was at the head of the Mada- 
waska river, which river, it is maintained by a long argument, sup- 
ported by authorities and maps, was always considered as the real 
St. John : and this is stated to justify the opinion expressed by the 
old Congress, in 1779, that this northwest angle was at the source 
of the St. John. 

Giving all possible consideration to this apparently new discovery, 
I can not say that it appears well founded. Looking at Mitchell's 
map, the use of which by the negotiators of the peace of 1783 has 
been always so much relied upon on the part of America, there is 
nothing more clearly marked than the great distinct channel of the 
upper St. John, and it seems hardly possible that the negotiators 
or the Congress should have made the supposed mistake. 

But, supposing this hypothesis were well founded, the Temis- 
couata lake is, then, now to be this long lost angle of Nova Scotia. 
What becomes, then, of the point so long contended for by Maine, 
between the Metis and one of the tributaries of the Ristigouch ? 
These points must be about fifty miles apart. Both cannot be true ; 
and if it be maintained, as I rather collect it to be from the paper 
of the Maine commissioners, that the point at the Metis is the true 
boundary, as being the point stricken by the north line, though the 
other be the true northwest angle of Nova Scotia, there is at least 
an end of the whole argument, resting upon this nothwest angle be- 
ing, as stated by you, " the thing to be sought for and found. " 

If this new discovery leads us to no other inference, we can 
hardly fail to derive from it the conviction that all the ingenuity 
applied to unravel this mystery leaves us equally in the dark ; and 
that it is not without reason that it has been decided by so many 



42 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

persons, after careful examination, that this boundary is not suscep- 
tible of settlement according to the precise words of the treaty. 

This decision has been come to by Mr. Madison, in 1802, by 
Mr. Jefferson, in 1803, by Judge Sullivan about the same time, by 
the arbiter in 1831, and it has been acted upon by nearly every 
Secretary of State of the United States during the controversy from 
that time to this ; for, although in a case in dispute each party dur- 
ing the dispute endeavors to hold his own, I am not aware that any 
Secretary of State, or any President of the United States, has ever 
treated this subject otherwise than as one attended by that degree 
of uncertainty, that it could only be solved by an arbiter, or by a 
compromise. I would appeal to your candor, sir, to say whether 
at this time, and under these circumstances, it is fair to speak of this 
disputed territory as belonging indisputably to one party, and to be 
yielded by way of concession, and for equivalents, to the other. 
Any convention I may sign must be for a division of that which is 
in doubt and dispute. With any arrangements between the State 
of Maine and the general government I have nothing to do ; and 
if, which God forbid, our endeavors at an amicable compro- 
mise should at last fail, I must hold that Great Britain retains her 
right at least equal to that of the United States, to every part of 
the territory in dispute, until by a renewed reference, or by the skill 
of some more fortunate negotiator, this difference may be brought 
to a close. 

I have now only to add a few observations upon the arguments 
contained in your own note. 

Some stress is laid upon the fact that the joint commissioners of 
the two governments in 1817, directed the surveyors to run the 
north line from the St. Croix, until it met waters running into the 
St. Lawrence. The lines to be run were to ascertain the geograph- 
ical facts of the case. No proceeding could be more proper. The 
claims of the two parties varied, and it was natural that, in the first 
instance, a line should be run north to the extent claimed by either 
party ; where that line would reach, and what highlands or streams 
it might strike, was unknown ; so much so, that Mr. Gallatin, in 
his letter from Ghent, mentioned in my note of the 13th ultimo. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 43 

♦expressed his doubts on this subject. His prediction turned out to 
be true. The point where the line strikes the Metis, was a point 
not fulfilling the words of the treaty. It did not divide the waters 
as desired, unless the bay of Chaleurs and the gulf of St. Law- 
rence are considered to answer the description of the Atlantic ocean. 
Mr. Gallatin was sensible of this, and intimates that if this fact 
created doubt, the lands about the Restigouche might be given up ; 
but he forgets that in giving up this territory he gives up his argu- 
ment ; for he maintains, in opposition to the British line of boun- 
dary, that it does not continuoushj and in all its j^arts divide the 
waters as required by the treaty. The American line was in this 
respect equally deficient, and it is useless, therefore, here to con- 
sider whether it would have been preferable to the British line, if it 
had divided the waters of the St. Lawrence from those of the St. 
John. To make even a plausible case for the American line, both 
the St. John and the Ristigouche must be held to be rivers empty- 
ing into the Atlantic ocean. The royal arbiter says it would be 
hazardous so to class them. I believe that whatever argument 
might be made in the case of the St. John, connected with the dis- 
tinctions with which it was mentioned in the treaty, to consider the 
Ristigouche as flowing into the Atlantic ocean would be more than 
hazardous, it would be most absurd. 

At all events, 1 would submit to you that no inference could be 
drawn from the commissioners in 1817 having ordered a north line 
to be run ; the same commissioners, after drawing the line, having 
disagreed as to any conclusions from it. 

I am rather surprised that an inspection of the map should lead 
us to such different views of the course of the rivers and of the 
coast, as stated by you. I find that the upper St. John and the 
Ristigouche, so far from cutting at right angles the parallel lines of 
the coast and the St. Lawrence, as you say, run in their main course 
nearly parallel with them. I am not aware that the fact is impor- 
tant, although it seems connected with your argument. 

My inspection of these maps, and my examination of the docu- 
ments, lead me to a very strong conviction that the iiighlands con- 
templated by the negotiators of the treaty, were the only highlands 

E 



44 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

then known to them at the head of the Penobscot, Kennebec, and 
the rivers west of the St. Croix, and that they did not precisely 
know how the north Hne from the St. Croix would strike them ; and, 
if it were not my wish to shorten this discussion, I believe a very 
good argument might be drawn from the words of the treaty in 
proof of this. In the negotiations with Mr. Livingston, and after- 
ward with Mr. McLane, this view seemed to prevail, and, as you 
are aware, there were proposals to search for these highlands to the 
west, where alone I believe they will be found to answer perfectly 
the description of the treaty. If this question should unfortunately 
go to a further reference, I should by no means despair of finding 
some confirmation of this view of the case. 

I shall now, sir, close what I have to say on the controversial 
part of this question. I should not have treated of it at all, but 
from respect to the gentlemen from Maine, whose arguments you 
conveyed to me, and I shall certainly not renew it unless called upon 
by you to do so. Our immediate business is with the compromise 
of what is not otherwise to be settled, and argument and contro- 
versy, far from assisting to that end, have more generally a tendency 
to irritate and excite. 

Referring, then, to our more immediate subject of a line by agree- 
ment, I deeply regret, on reading your observations and proposals, that 
we are yet so far asunder. I always thought this part of our duty 
better performed by conference than by correspondence, unless, 
indeed, we had the misfortune not to be able ultimately to agree, in 
which case, it would certainly be necessary that our two countries 
should see clearly on paper how nearly we had approached to each 
other, and on whom the blame at last rested of leaving unsettled a 
question Involving such serious consequences. I would still recom- 
mend this course of personal discussion and conference, but, in the 
meantime, I proceed to notice the proposals and observations con- 
tained in your note. 

It is sufficiently explained in my plan for a settlement why I 
was anxious not to divide in two parts, by any nev/ line or boun- 
dary, the Madawaska settlements ; and I am sorry to say that the 
information I have since received, both as to local circumstances 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 45 

and the anxiety of the people themselves, tends strongly to confirm 
my impressions. At the same time, you will have seen that I was 
sensible that some good reason should be assigned why we should 
not be satisfied with what you justly term the otherwise perfect 
boundary of the St. John. In your reply you recognise the diffi- 
culties of the case, and do justice to our motives, but you state dis- 
tinctly, on the part of your government, that you can consent to 
no line which should bring us over the St. John without some equiv- 
alent of territory to be found out of the limits of that part which is 
in dispute ; and you refer more particularly to a certain narrow strip 
lying between the north line and the river. This strip I have no 
power to give up ; and I beg to add that the refusal of my govern- 
ment is founded simply on their objection to dispose arbitrarily, of 
the persons and property of her Majesty's subjects living by prefer- 
ence under her authority — an objection which you are sensible 
applies with peculiar force to the inhabitants of this part of New 
Brunswick. 

I had hoped that the other equivalents which I had offered, com- 
bined with the sense entertained by the government of the United 
States of the pressing importance of the case on the ground of hu- 
manity, would have been sufficient for the purpose I so anxiously 
desired ; but perceiving, from your note, as well as from personal 
conversation, that concession on this point is insisted upon, I might 
be disposed to consider whether my anxious desire to arrive at a 
friendly settlement would not justify me in yielding, however re- 
luctantly, if the latter part of your proposal did not, if finally per- 
severed in, forbid all hope of any settlement whatever. 

The boundary you propose, supposing the British territory not to 
come over the St. John, is to run from the north side of that river, 
three miles above its junction with the Madawaska, over an arbi- 
trary line, which my map does not exactly permit me to follow, until 
it reaches somewhere the St. Francis. I need not examine this line 
in its precise details, because I am obliged frankly to state that it is 
inadmissible. I think I might, sir, fairly appeal to your candid 
judgment to say whether this is a proposition of conciliation — 
whether, after all antecedent discussions on this subject, it could 



46 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

be reasonably expected that, whatever might be the anxiety of my 
government for a friendly settlement, I could be found with power 
to accede to such terms. I need not observe to you that this would 
give to Great Britain less than the award of the arbiter, while at 
the same time she would be called upon to give up what the arbi- 
ter awarded to her, and, if I d.") not mistake you, the floatage of the 
lumber of Maine dov/n the St. John, is also expected to be surren- 
dered. 

I must beg to say that I am quite at a loss to account for such a 
proposal. Your own principle of maintaining the great river as the 
best boundary is abandoned, an arbitrary line is drawn which no- 
body ever suggested before, and [ can only suppose this course to 
be dictated by that general assumption that, notwithstanding all 
former admissions and decisions to the contrary, this territory, said 
to be in dispute, in truth belongs to one party, to be doled out as a 
favor to the other ; an assumption which cannot for a moment be 
admitted, and which you, sir, with the records of your office before 
you, will hardly maintain. 

The position in which this negotiation now stands, seen]s to 
prove what I have before ventured to advance, that it would have 
a better chance of success by conference than by correspondence : 
at all events, that we should sooner arrive at ascertaining what we 
can or cannot do. Slow, unnecessarily slow, our progress has hith- 
erto been, and the public seem, somehow or other, to have become 
informed that there are differences. I hope when we come to dis- 
cuss them, that they will prove less serious than they are supposed 
to be ; but it is very desirable that doubts and distrusts should be 
set at rest, and that public credit and the transactions of commerce 
should suffer the least possible disturbance. For, although, should 
this negotiation unfortunately fail, it will be our duty immediately 
to place it in some new course of further reference, it is not to be 
disguised that such a result must be productive of considerable pub- 
lic anxiety and disappointment. 

What I have said with respect to the case of the Madawaska 
settlements will, I trust, sufficiently prove my disposition to approach 
such a discussion with a true spirit of conciliation ; and 1 trust you 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 47 

will permit me to express a hope that it will be met with a corres- 
ponding feeling. 

Before concluding, I wish to add a few words respecting the line 
of the St. John to one of its sources, and the navigation, for cer- 
tain purposes, of that river. It may be true that the district be- 
tween the St. John and the highlands west of the St. Francis may- 
be of some extent, but your own surveyors will confirm to you that 
it is of very little value, either for cultivation or timber. Is it rea- 
sonable that, in the division of an object in dispute, its intrinsic 
value should be wholly disregarded, and its size or extent be alone 
considered ? 

I would further suggest for your consideration whether, supposing 
the division by the King of the Netherlands to be admitted to sat- 
isfy fairly the equity of the case between the parties, what is pro- 
posed to be added by Great Britain, viz : the strip on the 45th 
parallel of latitude, and the use of the navigation of the St. John, 
be not an ample compensation for what we ask in return, viz : that 
barren strip above the upper St. John, which is wanted for no 
other purpose than as a boundary, for which purpose it is admitted 
on all sides to be most convenient. 

The ri^ht to use the St. John for floating down the lumber of 
Maine, on the same terms as the river is used by the Queen's sub- 
jects, is now treated as a matter of light importance. This is not 
uncommon when a concession of any kind is about to be yielded ; 
but I beg to remind you that this was not formerly so considered. 
It has been repeatedly solicited and invariably refused, and no min- 
ister of Great Britain has before been permitted to connect this 
concession with the settlement of the boundary. It is considered 
by my government as a very important concession. I am sure that 
it must be considered by all persons in Maine, connected with the 
lumber trade, as not only valuable but indispensable ; and I am 
compelled to add that I am empowered to allow this privilege only 
in the event of a settlement of the boundary on satisfactory terms. 
It is said, in the memorandum of the Maine commissioners, that this 
conceded navigation will be as useful to the town of St. John as 
to the lumberers of Maine ; but it will not escape you that, even if 

E* 



48 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

this be so, it is a concession necessary to give any value whatever 
to so bulky an article as lumber, which, being not otherwise dispos- 
able, would bear any reasonable toll which the provincial authori- 
ties of New Brunswick might think it expedient to levy upon it. 
Further, it should not be forgotten that the timber, once at the 
mouth of the St. John, will have the privilege of reaching the Brit- 
ish as well as other markets ; and lastly, that it is a very different 
thing to hold a privilege of this important description by right or 
by mere sufferance, to be granted or withheld at pleasure. 

I have to apologise for entering into these details, in treating of 
the great question v^ith which we are occupied, but they seemed 
called for by observations contained in the paper you send me. 

I beg, sir, you will be assured of my unfeigned and distinguished 
consideration. 

ASHBURTON. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Stc, he, he. 



No. 6. Communication of the same to the Commissioners of Mains- 
and 3Ia3sachusctts. 



[confidential.] 

Mr. Webster to the Commissiouers of Maine and Massachusetts. 

Department of State, > 
Washington, July 12, 1842. 5 
Gentlemen: I place in your hands a note received yesterday 
from Lord Ashburton ; it would have been transmitted sooner, but 
I was not able to read it myself until this morning. 

I shall have the honor of inviting a conference with you at an 
early opportunity, being very desirous of making progress in the 
business in which we are engaged, and satisfied that the various 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 49 

parties in interest are as well prepared now to come to a decision 
as they are likely to be at any ti-ie hereafter. 
I have the honor, &;c. 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 
The Hon. Commissioners, 

of Maine and Massachusetts. 



No. 7. Reply of the Maine Commissioners to the rejection of their 
proposition, and to the letter of Lord AMurton of July 11, 1S42. 



The Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 16, 1842. 
Sir : We learn from the letter addressed to you by Lord Ash- 
burton, dated the 11th instant, and by you communicated to the 
commissioners of Maine and Massachusetts, that the line proposed 
by us as a conventional line, with the assent and concurrence of 
the commissioners of Massachusetts, in our note to you of the 29th 
ultimo, is inadmissible. His lordship even expresses himself as 
being " quite at a loss to account for such a proposal," and appeals 
to your candid judgment to say " whether this is a proposition of 
conciliation, " and " whether it could reasonably be expected that, 
whatever might be the anxiety of his Government for a friendly 
settlement, he could be found with power <o accede to such terms. " 
That public, to which his lordship more than once alludes in both 
his letters, will have it in their power to judge which proposition, 
on the whole, under all the circumstances of the case, is best enti- 
tled to the character of conciliatory, his lordship's or ours. To 
you, sir, the commissioners must be permitted to insist that they 
did intend and consider their offer as a proposition of conciliation, 
however it may appear to Lord Ashburton. It is predicated upon 
the basis of yielding to Great Britain all she needs, and more than 
she needs, for the natural, convenient, and " unobstructed commu- 



50 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

nication and connexion of her colonies with each other ;" — ^a desire 
on her part to obtain which, is believed to be at the bottom of this 
controversy, and the necessity of securing which even his lordship 
seems to admit, has been the main reason of her continuing to per- 
sist in it. The royal arbiter, as his lordship is pleased to call him, 
clearly understood this and governed himself accordingly. He rec- 
ommended the yielding, on the part of ihe United States, of this 
portion of territory, coupling it at the same time with the yielding, 
on the part of Great Britain, to the United States, of Rouse's 
point, on Lake Champlain, and the fort there erected, with its kilo- 
metrical radius, and so much of the territory adjacent as might be 
necessary to include it. The existence of such a place and its for- 
tifications had not been even alluded to in the American statements 
nor by the American agents. The British agents could not suffer 
such a fact to pass unnoticed. They studiously informed the royal 
arbiter in their first statement, and took care to advert to it again 
in their second, that there was " a certain point called Rouse''s 
point, where there happened to be an important American fort, 
which had been erected not long before at considerable expense, as 
a defence for that frontier." Thus admonished of the fact, the 
royal arbiter readily availed himself of it, and placed the value and 
convenience of this supposed important military position and forti- 
fication to the account of the United States, as an ofiset for the ter- 
ritory in Maine, needed for the convenience of Great Britain, and 
for " the unobstructed communication and connexion of her colo- 
nies with each other;" supposing, without doubt, that in so doing 
he was promoting the interest, and objects, and convenience of 
both nations. When, therefore. Lord Ashburton bases his propo- 
sition on the supposition that " the division by the King of the 
Netherlands satisfied fairly the equity of the case between the 
parlies," and restrains that monarch's views to an equitable division 
of the territory in dispute in Maine only, he overlooks, as it ap- 
pears to us, the fact that both matters were before his majesty's mind 
at one and the same time ; and that, as in the one instance, he re- 
commended that a certain portion of territory should be yielded by 
the United States to Great Britain for her accommodation, so, in the 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 51 

other, he recommended that a certain oilier portion of territory, be- 
longing of right to Great Britain, in his opinion, should be yielded 
by Great Britain to the United Stales for their supposed accommo- 
dation and security. It is true that Rou:e's point had formerly 
been considered as of great importance as a military position, and 
that ihe United States had expended very large sums of money in 
erecting fortifications there. The royal arbiter, therefore, acting 
under the inlluence of tlie exparte information so gratuitously fur- 
nished him, might well attach to Rouse's point and its fortifications 
an inflated imj)ortance ; and, taking the whole relations and inter- 
ests of the parties before him into consideration, might regard his 
recommendation as satisfying fairly the equity of the case between 
the parties. But, however this may be, it is certain that what 
would be an equitable division of the territory in dispute was never 
submitted to the King of the Netherlands at all by the United 
States ; that no evidence upon that point was placed before him 
by the United States ; nor were the United States or their agents 
ever heard or consulted on that point by him. Against the adop- 
tion of his recommendation in this respect, the State of J\Iaine has 
ever solemnly protested ; and the Senate of the United States, who 
alone had the constitutional power to adopt and ratify it, rejected it 
with great unanimity. The recommendation of the royal arbiter, 
therefore, given under such circumstances, can in no way affect the 
rights of the parties in interest, and is i:i flict entitled to no more 
consideration and respect than that of any other gentleman of 
equal intelligence and information under the same circumstances. 
We feel it our duty, therefore, to say to you, that the hypothesis 
assumed by Lord Ashburton, that the portion of disputed territory 
cut off from ]Maine by the line recommended by the King of the 
Netherlands should be yielded to Great Britain without any equiv- 
alent whatever, cannot be, and in our opinion ought not for a 
moment to be, admitted or acquiesced in by the commissioners of 
Maine. 

Among the objections made by Lord Ashburton to the line pro- 
posed by us, drawn from the bend of the St. John, three miles 
above the mouth of the Madawaska. to the outlet of Long lake. 



52 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

one is, that it is an arbitrary line, which nobody ever suggested 
before ; and that it would give to Great Britain less than the award 
of the arbiter. All this is true. But the lino proposed by us is a 
straight line, like that from the source of the St. Croix, drawn from 
one well-known natural monument to another well-known natural 
monument, within convenient distances of each other, and about 
which there could be no mistake or dispute. It yields also all, and 
more than all, that is needed by Great Britain, for the unobstructed 
communication and connection of her colonies with each other ; 
and, as suggested by us in our note of the 29th ult., was proposed, 
rather than the channel of the Madawaska, solely for that reason 
and on that account. And what does Great Britain want of more ? 
If the true character of that territory be of the description, " the 
miserable description," stated by his lordship in his note of the 21st 
ult., why should he feel it to be an objection, that the line proposed 
by us would give to Great Britain less than the award of the arbi- 
ter, when it gives her enough to answer all her purposes ? Beyond 
the designated bend of the St. John, the course of that river is 
such as to make, with the St. Francis, an acute angle, thereby 
forming between them a wedge uf territory inserting itself for its 
whole length, according to that award, into the territory of the 
United States. Again, at the mouth of Turtle river, so called, 
a few miles above the designated bend of the St. John, there is a 
small settlement of Americans holding their lands under grants 
from Maine? and Massachusetts. Again, the river St. Francis is 
one, whose course is exceedingly crooked, having many sharp 
bends, so that while the distance by the river and lakes from the 
Grand Portage to the mouth of the St. Francis is estimated by the 
assistant geologist of Massachusetts, who followed it down its 
whole length, at not less than eighty five miles, the distance from 
the one point to the other in a straight line is only about forty 
miles. Moreover, the line recommended by the King of the Neth- 
erlands, without any knowledge of the topography of the country, 
is believed to be impracticable, on account of there being in fact no 
such stream emptying into the lake, as in his recommendation he 
supposes to exist. And we will add, that however miserable his 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 53 

lordship may consider the territory there to be, we regard it as of 
much value, inasmuch as it is well known to be covered with a fine 
growth of timber, equal, it is said, to any to be found on the dis- 
puted territory. 

In connexion with these considerations, we wish to add a few 
words on the subject of the right to float down our timber on the 
St. John, since his lordship has made it a special subject of com- 
ment. Great changes, as his lordship well knows, are brouglu about 
in the state of things by the mere course of time. Tlie timber of 
New Brunswick suitable for the British market has nearly all dis- 
appeared. While they had a supply of their own, the right of 
carrying down our lumber was most sti-enuously and pertinaciously 
resisted, as Lord Ashburton himself states. A very large quantity 
of the most valuable lumber is situated on the banks of the Alagash, 
above the falls of that river. By first throwing a dam across the 
Alagash, and then with a common pickaxe and spade digging a 
channel across the range of the British highlands, our enterprising 
lumbermen have found the means of turning the valuable timber of 
the Alagash down the river Penobscot. More than six million feet 
of this lumber were sawed in the mills of the Penobscot the last 
season. How fxrthe change in the disposition of the British cabi- 
net, which his lordship speaks of, has been effected by these and 
the like considerations, it is not our purpose to inquire. Nor do we 
mean to be understood as undervaluing this change of policy. Our 
object has been to show that Great Britain, in making the proposi- 
tion, is pursuing her own objects and promoting her own interests, 
and not making any sacrifice by way of an equivalent for conces- 
sions on our part. 

It will not have escaped your recollection, that the river St. 
John is not a river navigable from the sea, in the ordinary accep- 
tation of that expression. There is a ledge running across the 
mouth of that river, of such a character that, owing to the very 
high tides in the bay of Fundy, there is a fall of about twenty 
feet out at low water, and a fall of some four feet in at high 
water. It is only about forty five minutes in a tide that you can 
pass in or out of the river at all ; and even during that short period the 



54 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

passage Is a difficult and dangerous one. So, again, there is a fall 
of about forty feet on the Aroostook before you reach the American 
territory ; and a fall also on the St. John itself of eighty feet before 
you reach the State of Maine, as you follow up the river. The 
boasted free navigation of the St. John and its tributaries from the 
disputed territory, may well be illustrated by the free navigation of 
the Potomac to this city from the valley of the Shenandoah. When, 
therefore, as commissioners of Maine we consented to accept, as an 
equivalent from Great Britain for the territory proposed to be yielded 
to her for her convenience and accommodation, the free navigation 
of the St. John for the floating down of our lumber, we did con- 
sider ourselves, under all 'the circumstances of the case, as having 
proposed all that a liberal spirit of conciliation could require us to 
do. And it will not be deemed improper by you, if we here ad- 
vert to the fact that we cannot regard the relinquishment by the 
British government of any claim, heretofore advanced by it, to ter- 
ritory within the limits of Maine, as asserted by her, as a consid- 
eration or equivalent for the yielding, on our part, to Great Britain, 
of any other portion of the same territory. On this point the 
declarations of the Legislature of Maine are explicit, and we are 
bound to respect them. 

By his lordship's note of the 11th instant, we learn that he 
withdraws that part of his })roposition which relates to a cession of 
territory on the south side of the St. John. Even with this restric- 
tion of his proposition, the adoption of the St. John, as a boundary 
from the line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix, at 
its intersection with the St. John, to a source of thai river in the 
vicinity of the sources of the Penobscot and iJetjarmette, v/ould 
yield to Great Britain nearly four millions of acres, and more 
than one half of the whole territory to which she has ever pretend- 
ed to set up a claim. Nor is this all. His lordship further pro- 
poses to abide by the exploring line, so called, run and marked in 
1817, froni the monument at the source of the St. Croix; a line 
which interferes with, and cuts off a portion of the grants made 
long l)'^r,)re by Massachusetts. This line is well known not to be the 
true line — never was run as such, nor pretended so to be. It takes, 



NORTHEASTERxN BOUNDARY. 55 

however, from Maine, a strip of territory which is nearly a mile 
wide where it crosses the St. John, and which diminishes in width 
till it reaches the monument. His lordship's proposition contem- 
plates the adoption and establishment of that exploring line as the 
true boundary. It does not fall within our province to consider 
the value of those shreds and patches which his lordship proposes 
to yield to the United States as an equivalent. In New Hamp- 
shire, he consents to take the true northwest source of the Connec- 
ticut river, instead of the noi-theast source, as being the source in- 
tended in the treaty of ]7S3. In Vermont, he will abide by the 
old line, which was run, marked, and solemnly established, nearly 
seventy years ago. In New York, he will abide by the seme old 
iine, the effect of rectifying it being merely to give to New York 
a small angular strip on the west, and Great Britain a small angu- 
lar strip on the east. These small tracts and parings shaved from 
the State just named; and the right of floating down the St. John 
the products of the forest, as already explained, constitute alone 
the sum and magnitude of the equivalent offered by his lordship for 
the whole territory of Maine on the north side of the St. John. 
Whether such a proposition has pre-eminent claims over the one 
we have made, to be regarded as a " proposition of conciliation," 
we leave to that public to which his lordship is pleased so often to 
refer. 

Lord Ashburton has been led into an error, unintentionally no 
doubt, on his part, if he supi)oses that, in submitting to you, what 
we apprehend to be the reason why the precise and peculiar phra- 
seology used in the treaty of 1783, respecting the northwest angle 
of Nova Scotia, was adopted by the distinguished men who framed 
it, our object was to revive and enter upon a controversy, which for 
the present, at least, should be permitted to rest in peace. His 
lordship, in his letter to you of the 21st ult., has assumed it as a 
fact, and as the ground upon which the negotiation for an amicable 
settlement was to proceed, that the language and phraseology of 
the treaty of 1783 was such, " that the treaty itself was not exe- 
cutable according to its strict expression." We, on our part, could 
make no such " admission," nor acquiesce in any such " presump- 

F 



56 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

tion," nor by our silence even be supposed, for a moment, to pro- 
ceed 111 the negotiation on any sucli ground or hypotbesis; nor 
could we suffer to pass witbout observation, tlie declaration of a 
settled conviction on tbe part of tbe minister of Great Britain, 
made under sucb circumstances and wilb sucli bearings, " tbat it 
was tbe intention of tbe parties to tbe treaty of 1783, to leave to 
Great Britain tbe wbole waters of tbe St. Jobn." If bis lordsbip 
would bave avoided tbe introduction of any remarks bearing on 
tbese points on our part, it seems to us, tbat be bimself sbould bave 
avoided giving occasion for tbem. It is not a little remarkable, 
that tbe very dispute wbicb the sagacious men wbo framed tbat 
treaty endeavored, by tbeir studied and select pbraseology and 
terms, to guard against, sbould have arisen, notwithstanding all their 
care and precaution. 

We bave already shown, in our letter to you of tbe 29lb ult., 
that the members of tbe continental Congress, and tbe framers of 
the treaty of 1783, well knew of tbe existence and prescriptions 
of tbe proclamation of 1763, and tbe provisions of tbe Quebec act 
of 1774. They also well knew tbat tbe northwest angle of Nova 
Scotia, and the northeast angle of Rlassachusetts (Maine), were 
adjacent angles. 

They knew that tbe jurisdiction of Massachusetts and Nova 
Scotia extended back from tbe Atlantic ocean to tbe southern 
boundary of tbe province of Quebec ; and they well knew tbat tbe 
southern boundary of tbe province of Quebec, both by tbe proc- 
lamation of 1763 and the Quebec act of 1774, was the north side 
of the bay des Cbaleurs and tbe line of tbe bigidands lying on tbe 
south side of tbe St. Lawrence, in which the rivers tbat empty 
themselves into tbe river St. Lawrence, on that side, take their 
rise. When, however, they came to inquire whereabouts was the 
line that separated Massachusetts from Nova Scotia, they were at 
a loss. Accordingly, both in tbe instructions drawn up and sanc- 
tioned in 1779, and in the report and doings of the Congress in 
August, 178-2, it was proposed that the eastern boundary should 
be " a line to be settled and adjusted between that part of tbe State 
of Massachusetts Bay formerly called the province of Maine, and 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 57 

the colony of Nova Scotia, according to their respective rights.'* 
The committee of Congress, in their report of 16lh August, 1782, 
after suggesting several vague and unsatisfiictory reasons for consid- 
ering the St. John as the true boundary, add ; " VVc arc obliged to 
urge probabilities;" "but \vc wish that the northeastern boundary 
of ]\Iassachusetts may be left to future discussion, when other evi- 
dences may be obtained, which the ivar has removed from us.'' Mr. 
Adams, in his answer to an interrogatory propounded to him 15th 
August, 1797, says, speaking of the negotiations at Paris : " Doc- 
uments fiom the public offices in England were brought over and 
laid before us." Again : "The ultimate agreement was to adhere 
to the charter of IMassachusetls Bay and St. Croix river mentioned 
in it, which was supposed to be delineated on Mitchell's map." 
The charter of Massachusetts Bay, here referred to, originally em- 
braced Nova Scotia also ; but Nova Scotia having been erected 
into a separate province, the limits and jurisdiction of ]\Iassachusetts 
were curtailed and restricted to the western boundary, and that 
boundary was the river St. Croix. 

To remove all doubts in regard to the limit or boundaiy between 
Nova Scotia and Massachusetts Bay, the King of Groat Britain, 
on the 2ist day of November, 1763, established and defined it as 
follows, viz : "To the westward, although our said province [Nova 
Scotia] hath anciently extended, and doth of right extend, as far 
as the river Pentagon(5t or Penobscot, it shall be bounded by a line 
drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of the bay of Fundy 
to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by the said river to its source, 
and by a line drawn due north thence to the southern boundary of 
our colony of Quebec:" that is to say, the line of the highlands 
from whose northern declivity issue the streams that form the rivers 
which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence on its south 
side. Instead, therefore, of leaving the eastern boundary of Mas- 
sachusetts to future discussion, as proposed provisionally in the in- 
structions of Congress of 1779, and by the committee of 1782, in 
order to get " other evidences," the commissioners at Paris, having 
the documents before them, and to prevent all disputes which 
might in future arise on the subject of boundaries, at once ingrafted 



58 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

into the treaty the boundary prescribed by the document of 21st 
November, 1763, ah-eady quoted, as the boundary between Nova 
Scotia and the United States. Hence, also, in connexion with the 
facts stated in our communication, in respect to the uncertainty that 
had existed in regard to the true position of the northwest angle of 
Nova Scotia, the peculiar care and abundant caution with which 
they specified and defined which of all those places or positions, 
where the northwest angle of Nova Scotia had been supposed to 
be situated, was the place or position of the northwest angle of 
Nova Scotia, intended by the framers of the treaty. We do not 
assume to say that any other and different view of these i\icts is 
most absurd ; but we will venture to say, with the most entire res- 
pect for Lord Ashbuiton, that in our opinion an argument drawn 
from notorious and well-authenticated facts, such as these, whether 
it be an old or a new discovery, is deserving of more careful exam- 
ination and more consideration than his lordship seems to have be- 
stowed upon it. 

There is one other view, presented with much confidence in his 
lordship's letter, which we can not permit to pass unnoticed ; we 
mean the expression of his belief, that " to consider the Ristigouche 
as flowing into the Atlantic ocean, would be more than hazardous 
— it would be most absurd." 

The southern boundary of the colony of Quebec is declared by 
the proclamation of 1763 to be "a line which passes along the 
highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the 
said river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and also 
along the north coast of the bay des Chaleurs and the coast of the 
gulf of St. Lawrence," &c. The place of the mouth of the river 
St. Lawrence, in contradistinction to the gulf of St. Lawrence, is 
a poini established beyond all dispute. It is at the west end of 
the island of Anticosti. The river Ristigouche, which empties 
itself through the bay des Chaleurs into the gulf of St. Lawrence, 
is, by the proclamation, classed and considered as one of " the 
rivers which empty themselves into the sea," notwithstanding the 
bay des Chaleurs and the gulf of St. Lawrence are both named by 
their distinctive appellations in the same sentence. In anothejr 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 59 

part of the same instrument the governors are inhibited from pass- 
ing any patents for any lands beyond the heads of any of " the 
rivers which fall into the Atlantic ocean from the west and north- 
west." And in another clause it is said : Our will and pleasure 
as aforesaid [is] to reserve all the lands and territories lying to the 
westward of the sources of '• the rivers which fall into the sea 
from the west and northwest as aforesaid." Here the words " sea " 
and " Atlantic ocean " are used indiscriminately, the one being 
substituted for the other in reference to the rivers which flow from 
the west and northwest ; the river Ristigouche being one of these 
rivers. This also is in accordance with the view entertained and 
expressed in his argument in 1797, by the British agent, who, in 
speaking of the province of Quebec, says, that by the proclama- 
tion of the 7th October, 1763, it is "bounded on the south by the 
highlands, which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the 
river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, or Atlantic 
ocean." So, in the commission to Guy Carleton of 27th Decem- 
ber, 1774, the Ristigouche is again classed and considered as a 
river falling into the sea ; and what is more striking, in the same 
sentence, in which it speaks of the islands of Madelane, in the 
gulf of St. Lawrence, it speaks of "the river St. John, which 
discharges itself into the sea nearly opposite the west end of the 
island of Anticosti." After the passage of the Quebec act, and 
prior to the treaty of 1783, the southern boundary of the province 
of Quebec was described as being "a line from the bay of Cha- 
leurs along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty them- 
selves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fiiU into the 
sea, to a point in forty-five degrees of northern latitude on the 
eastern bank of the river Connecticut," k,c. Again, after the 
treaty of 1783, the southern boundary of the province of Quebec 
is described as " a line from the bay of Chaleurs along the high- 
lands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river 
St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean to the 
northwesternmost head of Connecticut river," &;c. But the point 
of beginning being the same, and the point at the Connecticut 
substantially the same, that point after the treaty being only placed 



60 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

further north, and the rivers taking their rise in the northern de- 
clivity being described in the same idenllcal words, the inference 
appears irresistible that the highlands referred to are one and the 
same ; and that the rivers taking their rise in the southern dechv- 
ity, and described before the treaty as falling into the sea, and after 
the treaty as falling into the Atlantic ocean, are one and the same 
rivers ; the words sea and Atlantic ocean being used indiscrimin- 
ately, and the one substituted for the other, as had already been 
done before in the proclamation of 1763. The only difference in 
the description of the boundary of the province of Quebec and 
that of the treaty of 1783, is, that the boundary of the province 
of Quebec begins at the bay of Chaleurs, whereas that of the 
treaty begins at a point farther west. Hence it plainly appears, 
that, under the classification of rivers with reference to these high- 
lands, as made by the proclamation of 1763, and recognised in the 
treaty of 1783, the river Risiigouche v^^as then classed and consid- 
ered as a river which falls into the sea, or Atlantic ocean, in con- 
tradistinction to the rivers which empty themselves into the river 
St. Lawrence. Wc are, therefore, wholly unable to perceive 
wherein consists the great absuidity at the present day, in ex- 
pounding the language of the treaty of 1783, of considering the 
river Risiigouche as a river wliich falls into the Atlantic ocean, 
unless'it be that by so doing you interfere with the claims and pre- 
tensions of Great Britain. 

There is one other portion of his lordship's note, in which he 
attributes certain opinions to Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Madison, Mr. Jef- 
ferson, Mr. Gallatin, and others, which we wouhj have wished to 
notice, in order to show how much his lordship has been (iisposed 
to mike out of a very little ; but the further discussion of this sub- 
ject we have considered as productive of little good, and hardly 
falling within our province. We have now only to repeat what we 
as distinctly stated in our note of the 29ih uU. that his lordship's 
proposition, as now modified, namely, that Maine should yield to 
Great Britain all the territory north of the St. John, can not be ac- 
ceded to on our part. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 61 

With great respect anil consideration, we have the honor to be, 
sir, your obedient servants, 

WM. P. PREBLE, 
EDWARD KAVANAGH, 
EDWARD KENT, 
JOHN OTIS. 
Hon. DanieIj Webster, 

Secretary of State. 



No. 8. Proposition in IcJialf of the United Slates hj Mr. Web- 
ster, Secretary of State. 



Mr. Webster to TIic Maine CommiEsioncrs* 

Department of State, 
JVashington, July 15, 1842. 

GENTiiEMEN : Yoii have had an opportunity of leading Lord 
Ashburton's nctc to nic. of the 11th of July. Since that date I 
have had full and frequent conferences with him respecting the 
eastern boundary, and believe I understand what is j)raciicable to 
be done on that subject, so far as he is concerned. In these con- 
ferences he has made no positive or binding proposition, thinking 
jierhaps it would be more desirable, under pre ent circumstances, 
that such proposition should proceed from the side c f the United 
States. I have reason to believe, however, that he would agree to 
a line cf boundary between the L^niled States and the British prov- 
inces of Canada and New Brunswick, such as is described in a 
paper accompanying this (marked B), and identified by my sig- 
nature. 

In establishing the line betv/een the monument and the St. John, 
h is thought necessary to adhere to that run and marked by th« 



62 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

surveyors of the two Governments in 1817 and 1S18. There is 
no doubt that the line recently run by IMajor Graham is more en- 
tirely accurate; but, being an ex parte line, there would be objec- 
tions to agreeing to it without examination, and thus, another survey 
would become necessary. Grants and settlements, also, have been 
made, in conformity with the former line, and its errors are so in- 
considerable that it is not thought that their correction is a suffi- 
cient object to disturb these settlements. Similar considerations 
have had great weight in adjusting the line in other parts of it. 

The territory in dispute between the two countries contains 12,- 
027 square miles, equal to 7,697,280 acres. 

By the line described in the accompanying paper, there will be 
assigned to the United States 7.015 square miles, equal to 4,489,- 
600 acres ; and to England 5,012 square miles, equal to 3,207,- 
680 acres. 

By the award of the King of the Netherlands, there was as- 
signed to the United States 7,903 square miles, 5,061,120 acres ; 
to England 4,119 square miles, 2,636,160 acres. 

The territory proposed to be relinquished to England, south of 
the line of the King of the Netherlands, is, as you will see, the 
mountain range, from the upper part of the St. Francis river to the 
meeting of the two contested lines of boundary, at the Meljar- 
mette Portage, in the highlands, near the source of the St. John-. 
This mountain tract contains 893 square miles, equal to 571,520 
acres. It is supj^osed to be of no value for cultivation or settle- 
ment. On this point you will see, herewith, a letter from Captain 
Talcott, who has been occupied two summers in exploring the line 
of the highlands, and is intimately acquainted with the territory.. 
The line leaves to the United States, between the base of the hills 
and the left bank of the St. John, and lying along upon the river, 
a territory of 657,280 acres, embracing, without doubt, all the val- 
uable land south of the St. Francis and west of the St. John. Of 
the general division of the territory, it is believed it may be safely- 
said that while the portion remaining with the United States is, in 
quantity, seven twelfths, in value it is at least four fifths of the 
whole. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 63 

Nor is it sujiposed tltat the possession of the mountain region is 
■of any importance, in connection with the defence of the country 
or any mihtary operations. It Hes below all the accustomed prac- 
ticable passages for troops into and out of Lower Canada ; that is 
to say, the Chaudiere, Lake Champlaiii, and the Richelieu, and 
the St. Lawrence, If an army, with its materiel, could possibly 
pass into Canada over these mountains, it would only find itself on 
the banks of the St. Lawrence below Quebec ; and, on the other 
hand, it is not conceivable that an invading enemy from Lower 
Canada would attempt a passage in this direction, leaving the 
Chaudiere on one hand and the route by Madawaska on the other.. 

If this line should be agreed to, on the part of the United 
States, I suppose that the British minister would, as an equivalent, 
stipulate, first, for the use of the river St. John, for the conveyance 
of the timber growing on any of its branches, to tide water, free 
from discriminating tolls, impositions, or inabilities of any kind, 
the timber enjoying all the privileges of British colonial timber. 
All opinions concur that this privilege of navigation must greatly 
enhance the value of the territory and the timber growing thereon, 
and prove exceedingly useful to the people of Maine. Second : 
That Rouse's Point, in Lake Champlain, and the lands heretofore 
supposed to be within the limits of New Hampshire, Vermont, and 
New Yoik, but which a correct ascertainment of the 45th parallel 
of latitude shows to be in Canada, should be surrendered to the 
United States. 

It is probable, also, that the disputed line of boundary in Lake 
Superior might be so adjusted as to leave a disputed island within 
the United States. 

These cessions on the part of England would enure partly to 
the benefit of the Slates of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New 
York, but principally to the United States. The consideration on 
the part of England, for making them, would be the manner agreed 
upon for adjusting the eastern boundary. The price of the cession,, 
.therefore, whatever it might be, would in fairness belong to the two 
States interested in the manner of that adjustment. 

Under the influence of these considerations, I am authorized to 
say, that if the commissioners of the two States assent to the lin^ 



64 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

as described in the acconipanying paper, tlie United States will 
undertake to pay to these States the siini of two hun(h'ed and fifty 
thousand dollars, to be divided between them in equal moieties ; 
and, also, to undertake for the settlement and payment of tlu ex- 
penses incurred by those States for the maintenance of the civil 
posse, and also for a survey which it was found necessary to make. 

The line suggested, with the coiupensaiions and equivalents 
which have been stated, is now suhmi.tc'd for your considcMaiion. 
That it is all which might have been hoped for, looking to the 
strength of the American claim, can hardly be said. But, as the 
settlement of a controversy of such duiaiion is a matter of high 
importance, as equivalents of undoubted value are offered, as 
longer postponement and delay would lead to further inconve- 
nience, and to tlie incurring of further expenses, and as no belter 
occasion, or perhaps any other occasion, for st^ttling the bounrlary 
by agreement, and on tlie ]iiincip!e of equivalents, is ever likely to 
present itself, the Government of the United States hopes that the 
commissioners of the two States will tind it to be consistent with 
iheir duty to assent to the line proposed, and to the terms and con- 
ditions attending the proposition. 

The, President has felt the deepest anxiety for an amicable set- 
tlement of the question, in a manner honorable to the country, and 
such as should preserve the rights and interests of the Slates con- 
cerned. From the moment of the announcement of Lord Ashbur- 
ton's mission, he has sedulously endeavored to ])ursue a course the 
most respectful towai'ds the Slates, and the most useful to their in- 
terests, as well as the most becoming to tlu; character and dignity 
of the Government. He will be happy if tii? result shall be such 
as shall satisfy Maine and Massachuseits, as well as the rest of the 
country. With these sentiments on the part of the President, and 
with the conviction that no moi-e advantageous arrangement can be 
made, the subject is now referred to the grave deliberation of the 
commissioners. 

1 have the honor to be, v^'ilh great respect, your obedient servant, 

DANIEL WEBSTER, 

To the Hon. the Commissioners of Mainic. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 65 

B. 

Beginning at the monument at the source of the river St. Croix, 
as designated by the commissioners under the fifdi article of the 
treaty of 1791, between the governments of tiie United Stales and 
Great Britain ; thence noith, following the exploring line run and 
marked by the surveyors of ihe two Governments in the years 1817 
and 1818, under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, to its in- 
tersection with the river St. Jo!m, and to the middle of the channel 
thereof; thence, up the miildle of the main channel of the said 
river St. John, to the month of the river St. Francis; thence, up 
the middle of t'.ie channel of the said river St. Francis, anri of the 
lakes through v/hich it flows, to the outlet of the lake Pohenaga- 
mook ; thence, southwesterly, in a straight line, to a point on the 
northwest branch of the river St. John, which point shall be ten 
miles distant from the main branch of the St. John, in a straight 
line, and in the nearest direction ; but if the said point shall be 
found to be less than seven miles from the nearest point of the sum- 
mit or crest of the highlands that divide those rivers which empty 
themselves into ths river St. Liwrence from those which fall into 
the Atlantic ocean, then the said point shall bo made to recede 
down the said river to a point seven miles in a straight line from 
the said summit or crest ; thence, in a straight line, in a course 
about south, eight degrees west, to the point where the parallel of 
latitude of 46'^ 25' intersects the southwest branch of the St. John ; 
thence, southerly, by the said branch, to the source thereof, in the 
highlands, at the Metjarmetto portage ; thence, down along the said 
highlands, to the head of Hall's stream ; thence, down the middle 
of said stream, till the line thus run intersects the old line of boun- 
dary, surveyed and marked by Valentine and Collins, previously to 
the year 1774, as the 45th degree of latitude, and which has been 
known and understood to be the line of actual division between the 
States of New York and Vermont on one side, and the British 
province of Canada on the other; and from said point of intersec- 
tion, west, along the said dividing lino, as heretofore known and 
understood, to the Iroquois or St. Lawrence river. 



66 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

Captain Talcott to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 14, 1842. 
Sir : The territory within the lines mentioned by you contains 
leight hundred and ninety three square miles, equal to Jive hundred 
nnd seventy one thousand jive hundred and tiventy acres. It is a 
iono- and narrow tract upon the mountains or highlands, the distance 
from 'Lake Pohenagamook to the Metjarmette portage being one 
iiundred and -ten miles. The territory is barren, and without tim- 
ber of value, and 1 should estimate that nineteen parts out of 
twenty are unfit for cultivation. Along eighty miles of this terri- 
'tory the highlands throw up into irregular eminences, of different 
■heights, and, though observing a general northeast and southwest 
<iirection, are not brought well into line. Some of the elevations 
are over three thousand feet above the sea. 

The formation is primitive siHceous rock, with slate resting upon 
^t, around the basis. Between the eminences are morasses and 
swamps, throughout which beds of moss of luxuriant growth rest 
on and cover the rocks and earth beneath. The growth is such as 
is usual in mountain regions on this continent, in high latitudes. 
On soQ^e of the ridges and eminences birch and maple are found ; 
on others, spruce and fir ; and in the swamps, spruce intermixed 
with cedar; but the wood everywhere is insignificant and of stinted 
.growth. It will readily be seen, therefore, that for cultivation, or 
■as capable of furnishing the means of human subsistence, the lands 
■tire of no value. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

A. TALCOTT; Commissioner. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, 

Secretary of State. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 67 

Letter from the Land Agents of Maine and Massachusetts to 3Ir. Webster. 

Bangor, June 3, 1842. 
Hon. Daniel Webster, 

Secretary of State of the United States. 

Sir : We have received your letter of the 2Sth ult. requesting 
information from us in relation to the quantity and value of the 
public lands in the State of Maine, belonging to the States of 
Massachusetts and Maine, and the value of timber standing there- 
on, &CC.. 

We have examined the several plans, field notes of surveyors 
and explorers, and other documents in the Land offices of both 
States, and we have herewith endeavored to comply with the sev- 
eral questions propounded, according to the best information we 
have been able to gather from said documents, as well as from per- 
sonal inspection and examination, which some of us have made 
upon several parts of the territory at various times. 

Question First. What quantity of unsold land still belongs to 
the two States, as nearly as may be known, assuming the true 
boundary between Maine and the British Provinces to be such as 
the United States asserts, beyond the St. John, and taking the 
British claim on the south of the St. John, in each of two ways, to 
wit : first, according to the alleged line of highland running from 
Mars Hill ? Second, according to the award of the King of Hol- 
land. 

Answer. The quantity of unsold lands in the State of Maine, 
which belongs to the two States, as near as it is practicable to 
ascertain from the surveys on the files of the Land offices, adding 
thereto the quantity of unsurveyed land which we obtain by meas- 
uring the lines on Greenleaf's map, is about six millions four 
hundred thousand acres, viz :^That portion south of the line recom- 
mended by the King of Holland, contains about four millions three 
hundred thousand acres, and north of said line about two millions 
one hundred thousand acres. 

Question Second. What is the average price at which the pub- 
lic lands in Maine have sold per acre for the last five or ten years, 
and how far north have lands been sold ? 

G 



68 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

Answer. The prices for which lands have been sold for the last 
ten years, (say since the year 1831) averages one dollar ten cents 
and eight mills per acre, which includes a considerable quantity of 
lands sold to settlers at the low price of fifty cents per acre, with a 
condition of erecting mills, he, for the purpose of enhancing the 
value of surrounding lands ; otherwise, the aggregate would have 
considerably increased the above average. 

The situation of the above lands are immediately bordering on 
the south line of the disputed territory. A few settlers lots have 
been sold on the St. John, and many settlers lots have been sold 
on the Aroostook river, amounting in all to about seventy thousand 
acres. 

Question Third. What is the estimated value of the lands 
north of the St. John, per acre, or what is their value compared 
with that of the lands south of the St. John ? 

Answer. Of the lands north of the line recommended by the 
King of Holland, about one third is equal in value to that south of 
the river St. John ; the remainder is of considerable less value. 

Question Fourth. Does the value of these lands much depend 
on the timber which may be standing upon them, and are the lands 
north of the St. John timbered, or well timbered in comparison 
with those on the south ? 

Answer. Most of the land south of the line recommended by 
the King of Holland, situate on the waters of the Aroostook river, 
is valuable both for the timber standing thereon and for cultivation. 
The other land may be said to be principally valuable for its tim- 
ber at present, but hereafter will be valuable for cultivation when 
the country is cleared up and settlements progress. That country- 
north of said line, is perhaps as will timbered, which is its principal 
value. 

Question Fifth. Of the well timbered lands, what portion lies 
on the waters of the St. John, and what would, in your opinion, be 
the value of the right of transporting this timber down that river to 
the sea, without import or toll ? 

Answer. Nearly all the timber on the disputed territory lies on 
and near the St. John and its tributaries. At present the British 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. t]9 

refuse to let it pass throuifh their Province, consequently, (as will 
readily and obviously appear, on reference being had to the maps 
of that section of country) if such refusal is continued, it will be 
valueless. But if we are permitted to transport the timber down 
the St. John, without impost or toll of any kind, and market it at 
the city of St. John, or carry it to any other market at our option, 
as we do from our own rivers, it will be of great value to us, and 
not otherwise. The timber cut for the English market is of the 
best quality, perfectly sound and hewn square ; whereas for the 
home market, to saw into boards, he, the trees are cut down in 
the form of logs, with the bark on, and such as have hollow butts 
and hard sound knots answer equally well for making the best of 
lumber, while such description of timber would be of little or no 
value at the city of St. John. 

Question Sixth. Is the land lying on the streams which run 
into the St. John from the south, such as that it is likely to be val- 
uable for cultivation when the timber is removed, and what produce 
is it likely to afford ? 

Answer. The lands on the streams running south into the St. 
John river, are valuable for cultivation, and are well adapted for 
raising wheat, oats, barley, peas, potatoes, and excellent for grazing. 

Question Seventh. Will the land to the north of the St. John, 
or any considerable part of it, ever be valuable for cultivation ? 

Answer. Most of the land north of the St. John is of little 
value for cultivation, except a small strip on the banks of the main 
river, and some small tracts scattered in various parts, the residue 
is mountainous and very rocky. 

The questions in relation to lands lying north and south of the 
St. John, we hav^e supposed were intended as meaning north and 
south of the line awarded by the King of Holland, and as no part 
of said line is south of St. John river, we have made our remarks 
to apply to that line rather than to the river. 

GEO. W. COFFIN, 

Land Agent for Mass. 
LEVI BRADLEY," 

Land Agent for Maine. 



70 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

The undersigned liaving been Land Agent for the State of 
Maine, for the years 1838 and 1841, and having a knowledge of 
the northern part of the State, from personal observation, fully con- 
curs in the above statements. 

ELIJAH L. HAMLIN. 



No. 9. Acceptance of Mr. Webster's proposition, as modified, hy 
the Commissioners of Massachusetts. 



Commissioners of Massachusetts to 3Ir. Webster. 

Washington, July 20, 1842. 

Sir: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
communication of the 15th of July, addressed to us as commissioners 
of Massachusetts, authorized to act in her behalf in the settlement 
of the controversy concerning the northeastern boundary of the 
United States. The proposal therein presented for our assent, in 
behalf of the Government we represent, to the establishment of the 
conventional boundary indicated in your communication, and upon 
the terms and equivalents therein set forth, has received our careful 
consideration, and without further delay we submit the following 
reply : 

After the many interviews which we have had the pleasure to 
hold with you, during the progress of the negotiation which is 
drawing to its close, it is unnecessary for us to express our full con- 
currence in the sentiment, that the line suggested, with its compen- 
sations and equivalents, is not all which might have been hoped 
for, in view of the strength of the American claim to the territory in 
dispute. But inasmuch as in the progress of a negotiation, con- 
ducted with great deliberation, every proposition has been put forth, 
which any party, in whatever manner and to whatever extent it 
may be interested, has been disposed to submit for consideration 
and adoption, and the ultimate [)oint has been reached, at which 
negotiation must result in a compact, or the interruption of further 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 71 

effort for its accomplishment, we proceed to discharge the remain- 
ing duty which is devolved upon us. 

We are fully aware of the importance of the act that we are called 
upon to perforin. It is not less than the relinquishment, by the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of territory which she has always 
claimed to be a part of her possessions, and to which she believes 
she has a clear and indisputable title. So strong is the conviction 
of the right of Massachusetts and Maine to the undisturbed enjoy- 
ment of the land constituting what is called the disputed territory, 
by force of the treaty which terminated the war of the revolution, 
that she would prefer an appeal to the same arbitrament by which 
the acknowledgment of her right was originally obtained, to a sur- 
render, without just equivalents, of any portion of that territory. 
Still, she is aware that the government and people of the United 
States desire to preserve peace and friendly relations with other 
nations, so long as they can be maintained with honor, by conces- 
sions which, not a just policy alone, but that which is liberal and 
magnanimous may require. She partakes of the common spirit, and 
its influence pervades all her action, throughout this negotiation. 

There are other considerations of weight in the decision of this 
question. Though the title of Massachusettss to the lands in dispute 
is believed to be perfect, it is not to be overlooked that they have 
been the subject of controversy through many years ; that attempts, 
by negotiation and through the intervention of an umpire, have 
been unsuccessfully made to extinguish a conflicting claim ; and 
that the nations which are now seeking by renewed negotiation to 
put a period to the protracted strife, while desiring peace, have been 
brought to the verge of destructive war, through the dissensions 
incident to a disputed boundary. Should this negotiation fail of a 
successful issue, the alternative offered is a renewed submission of 
our rights to the determination of others. Past experience enforces 
the belief that other years must elapse, and great inconvenience be 
felt, before a decision can be obtained ; and the same monitor sug- 
<Tests the obvious truth, that however the title of Massachusetts and 
Maine, and of the United States, may be firmly established in jus 
tice, it is not equally certain that it would be confirmed by the 



72 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

tribunal, from whose decision, whatever it might be, no appeal 
could honorably be taken. 

But the considerations which most powerfully impel the State of 
Massachusetts to acquiesce in the terms of a treaty, that your com- 
munication indicates, are, the known desire of the people of the 
United States for a speedy settlement of the vexed question of the 
boundary^ and the request of the General Government, expressed 
throuo-h its constitutional organs, that Massachusetts would yield 
her consent to an arrangement which that Government deems to be 
reasonable. The State we have the honor to represent would be 
slow to disappoint the hopes of the nation, and reluctant to reject 
terms which the Government of the United States urges her to 
accept, as being compatible, in the estimation of that Government, 
with the interests of the State, and essential to the complete adjust- 
ment of the difficulties, which the security of national peace de- 
mands. 

Whether the national boundary suggested by you be suitable or 
unsuitable, whether the compensations that Great Britain offers to 
the United States for the territory conceded to her be adequate or 
inadequate, and whether the treaty which shall be efiected shall be 
honorable to the country or incompatible with its rights and dignity, 
are questions, not for Massachusetts, but for the General Govern- 
ment, upon its responsibility to the whole country, to decide. It is 
for the State to determine for what equivalents she will relinquish 
to the United States her interests in certain lands in the disputed 
territory, so that they may be made available to the Government of 
the United States, in the establishment of the northeastern boundary, 
and in a general settlement of all matters in controversy between 
Great Britain and the United States. In this view of the subject, 
and with the understanding that by the words " the nearest point of 
the highlands," in your description of the proposed line of boundary, 
is meant the nearest point of the crest of the highlands ; that the 
ri'rht to the free navigation of the river St. John shall include the 
right to the free transportation thereupon of all products of the soil 
as well as of the forest ; and that the pecuniary compensation to be 
?3aid by the Federal Government to the State of Massachusetts 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 73 

shall be increased to the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dol- 
lars, the State of Massachusetts, through her comnnissioners, hereby 
relinquishes to the United States her interest in the lands which 
will be excluded from the dominion of the United States by the 
establishment of the boundary aforesaid. 

We have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient 
servants, 

ABBOTT LAWRENCE, 
JOHN MILLS, 
CHARLES ALLEN. 
Hon. Daniel Webster, 

Secretary of State. 



No. 10. Acceptance of Mr. M^ebster^s proposition as modified, on 
condition that the Senate should advise and approve the some, 
by the Commissioners of Maine. 



The Commissioners of Maine to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 22, 1342. 
Sir : The undersigned, commissioners of the State of Maine on 
the subject of the northeastern boundary, have the honor to ac- 
knowledge the receipt of your note, addressed to them under date 
of the 1 5th instant, wuh enclosures therein referred to. The prop- 
osition first submitted by the special minister of Great Britain, on 
the subject of the boundary, having been disagreed to, and the 
proposition made on the part of the United States, with the assent 
of the commissioners of Maine and IMassachusetts, having been re- 
jected as inadmissible, coupled with an expression of surprise that 
it should have been made ; and Lord Ashburton, in the same com- 
munication, having intimated a preference for conference rather 
than correspondence, and having omitted in his note to make any 



74 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

new proposition, except a qualified withdrawal of a part of his for- 
mer one, we learn from your note that you " have had full and fre- 
quent conferences with him respecting the northeastern boundary," 
and that you " believe you understand what is practicable to be 
done on that subject, so far as he (Lord Ashburton) is concerned." 
We also learn, that "in these conferences he has made no positive 
or binding proposition, thinking, perhaps, it would be more desira- 
ble, under present circumstances, that such a proposition should 
proceed from the side of the United States ; " but that you have 
reason to believe that he would agree to a line of boundary such as 
is described in the paper accompanying your note, (marked B ;) 
and, also, that you entertain the conviction "that no more advan- 
tageous arrangement can be made ; " and, with this conviction, 
vou refer the subject to the grave deliberation of the commissioners. 
Regarding this as substantially a proposition on the part of the 
United States, with the knowledge and assent of Great Britain, and 
as the one most favorable to us, which, under any circumstances, 
the latter government would either offer or accept, the undersigned 
have not failed to bestow upon it the grave deliberation and con- 
sideration which its nature and importance, and their own responsi- 
ble position, demand. If the result of that deliberation should not 
fully justify the expressed hopes or meet the expectations and views 
of the government of the United States, we beg you to be assured 
that such failure will be the result of their firm convictions of duty 
to the State they represent, and will not arise from any want of an 
anxious desire, on their part, to bring the controversy to an amica- 
ble, just, and honorable termination. In coming to this considera- 
tion, they have not been unmindful that the State of Maine, with 
the firmest conviction of her absolute right to the whole territory 
drawn into controversy, and sustained, as she has been, by the 
unanimous concurrence of her sister States, and of the government 
of the Union, repeatedly expressed and cordially given, and with- 
out a wavering doubt as to the perfect practicability of marking 
the treaty line upon the face of the earth, according to her claim, 
has yet, at all times, manifested a spirit of forbearance and patience 
under what she could not but deem unfounded pretensions, and un- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 15 

warrantable delays, and irritating encroachments. In the midst of 
all the provocations to resistance, and to the assertion and mainten- 
ance of her extreme rights, she has never forgotten that she is a 
member of the Union, and she has endeavored to deserve the res- 
pect, sympathy, and co-operation of her sister States, by pursuing 
a course equally removed from pusillanimity and rashness, and by 
maintaining her difficult position in a spirit that would forbear much 
for peace, but would yield nothing through fear. At all times, and 
under all circumstances, she has been ready and anxious to bring 
the controversy to a close upon terms honorable and equitable, and 
to unite in any proper scheme to effect that object. In this spirit, 
and with these convictions, Maine instantly and cheerfully acceded 
to the proposal of the general government, made through you, to 
appoint commissioners. 

That no obstacle might be interposed to the successful issue of 
this negotiation, her Legislature gave to her commissioners ample and 
unlimited powers, which, but for the presumed necessity of the 
case, her people would be slow to yield to any functionaries. Her 
commissioners, thus appointed and thus empowered, assumed the 
duties imposed upon them in the spirit and with the views of the 
government and people of Maine. They came to the negotiation 
with a firm conviction of her rights, but with a disposition and de- 
termination to meet a conciliatory proposition for a conventional 
line in a similar spirit, and to yield, for any reasonable equivalent, 
all that they presumed would be asked or desired by the other party. 
They, with the other citizens of Maine, were not unapprized of the 
fact, so often alluded to in our former communications, that Eng- 
land had long been anxious to obtain the undisputed possession of 
that portion of the territory which would enable her to maintain a 
direct and uninterrupted communication between her provinces. So 
far as they could learn from any source, this was the only jjrofessed 
object she had in view, and the only one which had been regarded 
as in contemplation. 

With this understanding, the undersigned at once decided to 
yield, upon the most liberal terms, this long-sought convenience ; 
and they indulged the confident expectation that such a concession 



76 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

would at once meet all the wants and wishes of the English gov- 
ernment, and bring the mission to a speedy and satisfactory close. 
When, therefore, we were met at the outset by a proposition which 
required the cession, on our part, of all the territory north of the 
St. John river, and enough of the territory on the south to include 
the Madawaska settlement, extending at least fifty miles up that 
river, with no other equivalents to us than the limited right to float 
timber down that river, and to the United States the. small tracts 
adjacent to the forty fifth parallel of latitude in other States, we 
could not but express our regret to be thus, as it were, repelled. 
But, regarding this rather as the extreme limit of a claim, subject, 
notwithstanding the strong language of Lord Ashburton, to be res- 
trained and limited, we deemed it proper, in our communication of 
the 16th instant, after declining to accede to the proposition, in 
conjunction with the commissioners of Massachusetts, to point out 
and offer a conventional line of boundary as therein specified. In 
fixing on this line, we were mainly anxious to select such a one as 
should at once and pre-eminently give to Great Britain all that was 
necessary for her understood object, and to preserve to Maine the 
remainder of her territory. To accomplish this object, we departed 
from the river to secure the unobstructed use of the accustomed 
way from Quebec to Halifax. We are not aware that any objec- 
tion has been made, from any quarter, to this line, as not giving up 
to Great Britain all that she needed, or could reasonably ask for the 
above purpose. And although Lord Ashburton did not deem it ne- 
cessary to " examine the hoe (proposed) in its precise details," or 
to look at a map on which it could most readily be traced, and al- 
though he has seen fit to say that he was " quite at a loss to ac- 
count for such a proposal," yet he has not intimated that the line 
suggested, fails, in any respect, to meet the object we had in view, 
and which we frankly and readily avowed. It is well known to 
you, sir, that we had determined upon no such inflexible adherence 
to that exact damarcation as would have prevented us from changing 
it, upon any reasonable evidence that it did not, in every respect, 
meet the requirements of the above stated proposition, in relation 
to a perfect line of communication. But believing then, as we do 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 77 

now, that it did thus meet all these requirements ; and althou<di it 
was, as we feel bound to say, the general and confident expectation 
of the people of Maine, that any relinquishment on our part of 
junsd.ct.on and territory, would be, in part at least, compensated 
from that strip of contiguous territory on the west bank of the St. 
John ; yet, when we were solemnly assured that no such cession 
could be made under his lordship's instructions, wc foreborc to press 
for this reasonable and just exchange, and contented ourselves with 
accepting the limited right of navigation of the river, as the only 
equivalent from Great Britain for the territory and jurisdiction we 
offered to surrender. And, as you will remark, we offered not 
inerely a right of way on land for a similar easement on the water, 
but the entire and absolute title to the land and jurisdiction of the 
large tract north and east of the line specified. It cannot be de- 
nied, that it preserves to us a frontier in a forest almost impenetrable 
on the north, which would defend itself by its own natural character ; 
and that, if any thing should be deducted from the agricultural value 
of that portion beyond the Madawaska settlements, on account of its 
ruggedness and its want of attraction to settlers, much may justly 
be added to its value as a boundary between the two nations. 

The value of this tract to Great Britain, both in a civil and mil- 
itary point of view, cannot be overlooked. It gives her the much- 
coveted route for the movement of troops in war, and her mails and 
passengers in peace, and is most particularly important in case of 
renewed outbreaks in her North American colonies. The assump- 
tion of jurisdiction in the Madawaska settlement, and the perti- 
nacity with which it has been maintained, are practical evidence 
of the value attached to the tract by the government of Her Brit- 
annic Majesty. 

We have alluded to these views of the value and importance of 
this territory, not witii any design of expressing our regret that we 
thus offered it, but to show that we are fully aware "of all th(!se 
views and circumstances affecting the question, and that we duly 
appreciate the far-seeing sagacity and prudence of those British 
statesmen who so early attempted to secure it as a cession, by ne- 
gotiation, and the suggestion of equivalents. 



78 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

The answer of Lord Ashburton to your note of the 8th instant, 
contained a distinct rejection of our offer, with a substantial with- 
drawal of his claim to any territory south of the river St. John, but 
not modifying the claim for the relinquishment, on the part of JMaine 
and the United States, of all north of that river. Our views in 
reference to many of the topics in his lordship's reply we have had 
the honor heretofore to communicate to you, in our note of the 16th 
instant ; and to that answer we would now refer, as forming an im- 
portant part of this negotiation, and as containing our refusal of the 
line indicated. We are now called upon to consider the final pro- 
position made by or through the Government of the United States, 
for our consideration and acceptance. The line indicated may be 
shortly defined as the line recommended by the King of the Neth- 
erlands, and an addition thereto of a strip of land, at the base of 
the highlands, running to the source of the southwest branch of the 
St. John. The examination and consideration of all other lines, 
which might better meet our views and objects, have been precluded 
by the declaration, and other plenary evidence we have, that the 
line specified in your communication is the most advantageous that 
can be offered to us ; and that no one of less extent, or yielding in 
fact less to the other party, can be deemed admissible. We are, 
therefore, brought to the single and simple consideration of the ques- 
tion, whether we can, consistently with our views of our duty to 
the State we represent, accept the proposition submitted by you. 

So far as any claim is interposed, based upon a supposed equity 
arising from the recommendation of the King of the Netherlands, 
we have only to refer to our former note for our views on that topic. 
We have now only to add, that we came to this conference untram- 
melled and free, to see if, in a spirit of amity and equity, we could 
not find and agree upon some new line, which, whilst it yielded all 
that was needed by one party, might fairly be the motive and 
groundwork for the equivalent territory of rights granted to the other ; 
and that we cannot make any admission or consent to any proposi- 
tion which would not revive, but put vitality and power into that 
which, up to this time, has never possessed either. We base our 
whole action on grounds entirely independent of that advice of the 
arbiter. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 



79 



It may possibly be intimated in this connexion, as it has more 
than once been heretofore, that the commissioners of Maine and 
the people of that State, are disposed to regard the whole territory 
as clearly falling within their rightful limits, and are not willinr. to 
consider the question as one in doubt and dispute, and therefore, 
one to be settled as if each party had nearly or quite equal claims! 
Certamly, sir, the people and Government of Maine do not deny 
that the question has been drawn into dispute. They have had too 
many and too recent painful evidences of that fact, to allow such 
a doubt, however much at a loss they may be to perceive any just 
or tenable grounds on which the adversary claim is based. For 
years they have borne and forborne, and struggled to maintain 
their rights, in a peaceable and yet unflinching spirit, against what 
appeared to them injustice from abroad and neglect at home. But 
they have yet to learn that the mere fact that an adverse claim is 
made and persisted in, and maintained by ingenuity and ability for 
a series of years, increasing in extent and varying its grounds as 
years roll on, is to be regarded as a reason why courtesy should 
require, in opposition to the fact, a relinquishment of the plain, 
explicit, and sincere language of perfect conviction and unwavering 
confidence, or that a continued, adverse, and resisted claim, may 
yet, by mere lapse of time and reiteration, ripen into a right. But 
we desire it to be distinctly remembered that, in this attempt to 
negotiate for a conventional line, Maine has not insisted, or even 
requested, that any formal or virtual admission of her title to the 
whole territory should be a condition preliminary to a settlement. 
We hold, and we claim, the right to express, at all times, and in all 
suitable places, our opinion of the perfect right of Maine to the 
whole territory ; but we have never assumed it, as a point of honor, 
that our adversary should acknowledge it. Indeed, we have en- 
deavored to view the subject rather in reference to a settlement, on 
even hard terms for us, than to dwell on the strong aspect of the 
case, when we look at the naked question of our right and title un- 
der the treaty. It could hardly be expected, however, that we 
should silently, and thus virtually, acquiesce in any assumption that 
our claim was unsustained, and that " the treaty line was not exe- 






, 



80 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

cutable." On this point we expressed ourselves fully in a former 
note. 

In returning to the direct consideration of the last proposition, 
and the terms and conditions attending it, in justice to ourselves and 
our State, we feel bound to declare, and we confidently appeal to 
you, sir, in confirmation of the declaration, that this negotiation 
has been conducted, on our part, with no mercenary views, and 
with no design to extort unreasonable equivalents or extravagant 
compensation. The State of Maine has always felt an insuperable 
repugnance to parting with any portion even of her disputed terri- 
tory, for a mere pecuniary recompense from adverse claimants. 
She comes here for no mere bargain for the sale of acres, in the 
spirit or with the arts of traffic. Her commissioners have been 
much less anxious to secure benefit and recompense, than to pre- 
serve the State from unnecessary curtailment and dismemberment. 
The proposition we made is evidence of the fact. We have here- 
tofore expressed some opinions of the mutual character of the 
benefits to each party from the free navigation of the St. John. 
Without entering, however, upon the particular consideration of the 
terms and conditions, which we have not thought it necessary to 
do, we distinctly state that our repugnance to the line is based upon 
the extent of territory required to be yielded. We may, however, 
in passing, remark that all the pecuniary offers contained in your 
note, most liberally construed, would scarcely recompense and repay 
to Maine the amount of money and interest which she has actually 
expended in defending and protecting the territory from wrongs 
arising and threatened by reason of its condition as disputed ground. 

Considering, then, this proposition as involving the surrender of 
iTiore territory than the avowed objects of England require, as 
removing our land-marks from the well-known and well defined 
boundary of the treaty of 1783, the crest of the highlands, besides 
insisting upon the line of the arbiter in its full extent, we feel 
bound to say, after the most careful and anxious consideration, that 
we cannot bring our minds to the conviction that the proposal is 
such as Maine had a right to expect. 

But we are not unaware of the expectations which have been 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 81 

and still are entertained of a favorable issue to this negotiation by 
the Government and People of this country, and the great disap- 
pointment which would be felt and expressed at its failure. Nor 
are we unmindful of the future, warned as we have been by the 
past, that any attempts to determine the line by arbitration may 
be either fruitless, or with a result more to be deplored. 

We are now given to understand that the EKocutive of the 
United States, representing the sovereignty of the Union, assents to 
the proposal, and that this department of the Government at least 
is anxious for its acceptance, as, in its view, most expedient for the 
general good. 

The commissioners of Massachusetts have already given their 
assent, on behalf of that Commonwealth. Thus situated, the com- 
missioners of Maine, invoking the spirit of attachment and patriotic 
devotion of their State to the Union, and being willing to yield to 
the deliberate convictions of her sister States as to the path of duty, 
and to interpose no obstacles to an adjustment which the general 
judgment of the nation shall pronounce as honorable and expedient, 
even if that judgment shall lead to a surrender of a portion of the 
birthright of the people of their State, and prized by them because 
it is their birthright, have determined to overcome their objections 
to the proposal, so far as to say, that if, upon mature consideration, 
the Senate of the United States shall advise and consent to the rat 
ification of a treaty, corresponding in its terms with your proposal, 
and with the conditions in our memorandum accompanying this 
note, ( marked A. ) and identified by our signatures, they, by 
virtue of the power vested in them by the resolv^es of the legislature 
of Maine, give the assent of that State to such conventional line, 
with the terms, conditions, and equivalents, herein mentioned. 

We have the honor to be, sir, with high respect, your obedient 
servants, 

EDWARD KAVANAGH, 
EDWARD KENT, 
JOHN OTIS, 
WILLIAM P. PREBLE. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &;c., he, &cc. 



82 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

A. 

The commissioners of Maine request that the following provis- 
ions, or the substance thereof, shall be incorporated into the proposed 
treaty, should one be agreed on : 

1st. That the amount of "the disputed territory fund" (so call- 
ed) received by the authorities of Nev/ Brunswick, for timber cut 
on the disputed territory, shall be paid over to the United States, 
for the use of Maine and Massachusetts, in full, and a particular 
account rendered, or a gross sum, to be agreed upon by the commis- 
siomers of Maine and Massachusetts, shall be paid by Great Britain, 
as a settlement of that fund ; and that all claims, bonds and securi- 
ties, taken for timber cut upon the territory, be transferred to the 
authorities of Maine and Massachusetts. 

2. That all grants of land within that portion of the disputed 
territory conceded to Great Britain > made my Maine and Massachu- 
setts, or either of them, shall be confirmed, and all equitable 
possessory titles shall be quieted, to those who possess the claims ; 
and we assent to a reciprocal provision for the benefit of settlers 
falling within the limits of Maine. And we trust that the voluntary 
suggestion of the British minister, in regard to John Baker, and 
any others, if there be any, similarly situated, will be carried into 
effect, so as to secure their rights. 

3. That the right of free navigation of the St. John, as set forth 
in the proposition of Mr. Webster, on the part of the United States, 
shall extend to and include the products of the soil, in the same 
manner as the products of the forest ; and that no toll, tax, or duty 
be levied upon timber coming from the territory of Maine. 

EDWARD KAVANAGH, 
EDWARD KENT, 
JOHN OTIS, 
WM. P. PREBLE. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 83 

No. 11. Articles of the treaty as finally concluded and ratified, in 
relation to the boundary. 



Articles I., HI., IV., V., VI. 

A Treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territo- 
ries of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic 
Majesty in North America : for the final suppression of the Af- 
rican Slave Trade : and for the giving up of criminals, fugitive 
from justice, in certain cases. 

Article I. 
It is hereby agreed and declared that the line of boundary shall 
be as follows : beginning at the monument at the source of the 
river St. Croix, as designated and agreed to by the commissioners 
under the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, between the govern- 
ments of the United States and Great Britain ; thence north, fol- 
lowing the exploring line run and marked by the surveyors of the 
two governments in the years 1817 and 1818, under the fifth arti- 
cle of the treaty of Ghent, to its intersection with the river St. John, 
and to the middle of the channel thereof; thence, up the middle of 
the main channel of the said river St. John, to the mouth of the 
river St. Francis ; thence, up the middle of the channel of the said 
river St. Francis, and of the lakes through which it flows, to the 
outlet of the lake Pohenagamook ; thence, southwesterly, in a 
straight line to a point on the northwest branch of the river St. 
John, which point shall be ten miles distant from the main branch 
of the St. John, in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but 
if the said point shall be found to be less than seven miles from the 
nearest point of the summit or crest of the highlands that divide 
those rivers which empty themselves into the river Saint Lawrence 
from those which fall into the river St. John, then the said point 
shall be made to recede down the said northwest branch of the 
river St. John, to a point seven miles in a straight line from the 
said summit or crest ; thence, in a straight line, in a course about 
south eight degrees west, to a point where the parallel of latitude 
of 46° 25' north intersects the southwest branch of the St. John ; 



84 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

thence, southerly, by the said branch, to the source thereof in the 
highlands at the Metjarmette portage ; thence, down along the said 
highlands which divide the waters whieh empty themselves into the 
river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, 
to the head of Hall's stream ; thence, down the middle of said 
stream, till the line thus run intersects the old line of boundary 
surveyed and marked by Valentine and Collins previously to the 
year 1774, as the 45th degree of north latitude, and which has 
been known and understood to be the line of actual division be- 
tween the States of New York and Vermont on one side, and the 
British province of Canada on the other; and, from said point of 
intersection, west, along the said dividing line as heretofore known 
and understood, to the Iroquois, or St. Lawrence river. 

Article IIL 
In order to promote the interests and encourage the industry of all 
the inhabitants of the countries watered by the river St. John and 
its tributaries, whether living within the State of Maine or the prov- 
ince of New Brunswick, it is agreed that, where, by the provisions 
of the present treaty, the river St. John is declared to be the line 
of boundary, the navigation of the said river shall be free and open 
to both parties, and shall in no way be obstructed by either ; that 
all the produce of the forest in logs, lumber, timber, boards, staves, 
or shingles, or of agriculture, not being manufactured, grown on 
any of those parts of the State of Maine watered by the river St. 
John, or by its tributaries, of which fact reasonable evidence shall, 
if required, be produced, shall have free access into and through 
the said river and its said tributaries, having their source within the 
State of Maine, to and from the seaport at the mouth of the said 
river St. John, and to and around the falls of the said river, either 
by boats, rafts, or other conveyance ; that when within the prov- 
ince of New Brunswick, the said produce shall be dealt with as if 
it were the produce of the said province ; that in like manner the 
inhabitants of the territory of the upper St. John determined by this 
treaty to belong to her Britannic Majesty, shall have free access to 
and through the river for their produce, in those parts where the 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 85 

said river runs wholly in the State of Maine : provided always, 
that this agreement shall give no right to either party to interfere 
with any regulations not inconsistent with the terms of this treaty 
which the governments, respectively, of Maine or of Nevr Bruns- 
wick may make respecting the navigation of the said river, where 
both banks thereof shall belong to the same party. 

Article IV. 
All grants of land heretofore made by either party, within the 
limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the domin- 
ions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified, and confirmed 
to the persons in possession under such grants, to the same extent 
as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions 
of the party by whom such giants were made: and all equitable 
possessory claims, arising from a possession and improvement of 
any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or 
by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years 
before the date of this treaty, shall, in like manner, be deemed 
valid, and be confirmed and quieted by a release to the person en- 
tilled thereto, of the title to such lot or parcel of land, so described 
as best to include the improvements made thereon ; and in all other 
respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most 
liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon 
the territory falling to them, respectively, which has heretofore been 
in dispute between them. 

Article V. 

Whereas, in the course of the controversy respecting the disput- 
ed territory on the northeastern boundary, some moneys have been 
received by the authorities of Her Britannic Majesty's province of 
New Brunswick, with the intention of preventing depredations on 
the forests of the said territory, which moneys were to be carried to 
a fund, called the " Disputed Territory Fund," the proceeds where- 
of, it was agreed, should be hereafter paid over to the parties inter- 
ested, in the proportions to be determined by a final settlement of 
boundaries. It is hereby agreed, that a correct account of all re- 
ceipts and payments on the said fund, shall be delivered to the 



86 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

government of the United States, within six months after the ratifi- 
cation of this treaty ; and the proportion of the amount due thereon 
to the States of Maine and Massachusetts, and any bonds or secu- 
rities appertaining thereto, shall be paid and delivered over to the 
government of the United States ; and the government of the 
United States agrees to receive for the use of, and pay over to the 
states of Maine and Massachusetts, their respective portions of said 
fund : and further, to pay and satisfy said states, respectively, for 
all claims for expenses incurred by them in protecting the said 
heretofore disputed territory, and making a survey thereof, in 1838 ; 
the government of the United States agreeing with the states of 
P.'Iaine and Massachusetts to pay them the further sum of three 
hundred thousand dollars, in equal moieties, on account of their as- 
sent to the line of boundary described in this treaty, and in consid- 
eration of the conditions and equivalents received therefor, from the 
government of Her Britannic Majesty. 

Article VI. 
It is furthermore understood and agreed, that for the purpose of 
running and tracing those parts of the line between the source of 
the St. Croix and the St. Lawrence river, which will require to be 
run and ascertained, and for marking the residue of said line by 
proper monuments on the land, two commissioners shall be ap- 
pointed, one by the President of the United States, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and one by her 
Britannic Majesty : and the said commissioners shall meet at Ban- 
gor, in the State of Maine, on the first day of May next, or as soou 
thereafter as may be, and shall proceed to mark the line above de- 
scribed, from the source of the St. Croix to the river St. John : and 
shall trace on proper maps the dividing line along said river, and 
along the river St. Francis, to the outlet of the lake Pohenagamook ; 
and from the outlet of the said lake, they shall ascertain, fix, and 
mark by proper and durable monuments on the land, the line de- 
scribed in the first article of this treaty ; and the said commissioners 
shall make to each of their respective Governments a joint report 
or declaration, under their hands and seals, designating such line of 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 87 

boundary, and shall accompany such report or declaration with 
maps certified by them to be true maps of the new boundary. 

In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have sign- 
ed this treaty, and have hereunto affixed our seals. 

Done, in duplicate, at Washington, the nine day of August, 
Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. 

DANL. WEBSTER. ASHBURTON. 

[seal.] [seal.] 

And, whereas, the said treaty has been duly ratified on both 
parts, and the respective ratifications of the same having been ex- 
changed, to wit: at London, on the thirteenth day of October, one 
thousand eight hundred and forty-two, by Edward Everett, Envoy 
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, 
and the Right Honorable the Earl of Aberdeen, her Britannic Ma- 
jesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the part 
of their respective Governments : 

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, John Tyler, President of the 
United States of America, have caused the said treaty to be made 
public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article there- 
of, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith, by the United 
States and the citizens thereof. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caus- 
[l. s.] ed the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of November, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, 
and of the Independence of the United States, the sixty-seventh. 

JOHN TYLER. 

By the President ; 

Daniel Webster, 

Secretary of State. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

No. 12. Explanatory Letters. 



Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, 9th August, 1842. 

Sir: It appears desirable that some explanation between us 
should be recorded by correspondence, respecting the fifth article of 
the treaty signed by us this day, for the settlement of boundaries 
between Great Britain and the United States. 

By that article of the treaty it is stipulated, that certain payments 
shall be made by the Government of the United States to the 
States of Maine and Massachusetts. It has of course been under- 
stood that my negotiations have been with the Government of the 
United States, and the introduction of terms of agreement between 
the General Government and the States would have been irregular 
and inadmissible, if it had not been deemed expedient to bring the 
whole of these transactions within the perview of the treaty. 
There may not be wanting analogous cases to justify this proceed- 
ing, but it seems proper that I should have confirmed by you, that 
my Government incurs no responsibility for these engagements, of 
the precise nature and object of which I am uninformed, nor have 
I considered it necessary to make inquiry concerning them. 

I beg, sir, to renew to you the assurances of my high considera- 
tion. ASHBURTON. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, he, he, &ic. 



Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, > 
Washington, August 9, 1842. > 

My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
note of the 9th of August, with respect to the object and intention 
of the fifth article of the treaty. What you say in regard to that 
subject is quite correct. It purports to contain no stipulation on 
the part of Great Britain, nor is any responsibility supposed to be 
incurred by it, on the part of your Government. 

In renew, my lord, the assurances of my distinguished consider- 
ation. DANIEL WEBSTER. 

Lord Ashburton, he, he, he 



f" 4P \\h 



STATE OF MAINE 



In Senate, January 7, 1843. 
Ordered, That 1,000 extra copies of the Report of the Com- 
missioners on the Northeastern Boundary, be printed for the use of 
the Senate. 

Attest: JERE HASKELL, Secretary. 



H77 84 '•! 







.^"^ * 



; ^^^r^^ 



'h. *♦ 




•^^6« 











.0 -5^^^ . 



/ ^y 



V .•^rlr^ e 




..*^ 

i'-^. 



'o.. '••".'• 














......s 







-«5 o 




' ** ** 




.'«' 



*^ "^^^ •? 




*^'.M-.>^"'"V..--.''-»b 






.^^ . 



*>o* 






>* V^*/ \'^\/ v^^-/ ■ 



■» . * • A 



>°''*^ 







-V-TT,-'*.**'' V'^^-V' ^•. " 














J c 












V .*% V 



.T* A 



"^t^O^ 



-P* .. 




.^\^V^ 



<^ *'Tr.»\sO^ 







'bV" 



^^V^ 















'^ov* 



^^•n^. 






.♦''^^ 














> <.y 



'^0' 

.<<^^ 


















iVA'.^ .** /^i^--. V,.** -ifM*;-. *•...** :M 



\<^' • 

























<^, '•.T«'» aO- 



^^ 







* ^^ 






'bV" 







'^-0^ 



C" * 



















• JO • 





.^* .• 







<> ''t: 



•n^o« 



\ 



\.«" •• 




•• ^*' •-* 










** . 



i° •'■*-. 



^-./' •• 























^^-'^^ 




v'^rr,. 












.^^ . 



''bv^ • 




*vt.o< 



C"' • 




-ov^ 



s^ . 



^^•nK 




^^../ .-isitoi'o **,,«* /Jife:-, \>/ .•^•, %,** 






vv 



^""V. -. 



'^ -.^^^B?.* ..^'^'""^. 






<^ • • • A^ *u hV - v»^ ' • • • -^v 



.1*°- 



i"'*^ V 


















• AT 



* -'-^■•' %,** -^^ "^ 







HECKMAN 
BINDERY INC. 

,#^ APR 84 






,^^ 




\.^' 

>^^ 



• On -AT 



:^-- -oj* 







£t°^ 



V* 




